He literally doesn't understand that "little kids get cancer" suffices as a refutation of an omnibenevolent god

What some human retards say doesn't mean that's what God meant
>God isn't real cause little kids get cancer
>criticizing catholic gobbledygook response to the former
>lol read it again cause I can't argue XD

Then, he will have to suffice, for the dungeons of hellfire. Which, are, a more holy place than the earth which lead him to suffer such misery. Truly, by dying, his life is now -stable- in that he has no more worries, and can now, merely live.

>babies dying in agony of cancer is good! why? because it happens and god wouldnt let evil things happen, therefore its good!
This really does seem to be the kind of thing they always fall back on. Words are meaningless when arguing with Christians.

>hurr if god is reel ten y bad things happen

"Omnibenevolence" is not even really a category in orthodox Christian theology. It's not to be found anywhere in the Catholic catechism or liturgies. I'm not aware (though I could be wrong) of it being in any Orthodox standards. It's certainly not in any orthodox Protestant confessions or catechisms. Only forms of Universalism could even claim "omnibenevolence."

So what is it you are railing against? Because it certainly isn't any form of orthodox, confessional Christianity.

>he literally doesn't understand that "little kids get cancer" suffices as a refutation of an omnibenevolent god

Why are Christians always so shamelessly dishonest? It's like lying is a game to you "people".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy

>wikipedia is my source
>I don't actually know what omnibenevolence means

Why are you so fundamentally ignorant?

Literally every branch of non-Universalist Christianity has a category of the wrath (non-benevolence) of God.

The fact that wiki is all it took to expose your lies was my point, retard.

Which lies?

Why do you imagine wikipedia is enough to prove anything in any intellectual discipline? It's been notoriously horrendous particularly (but not singularly) in the area of theology. What is it that you imagine you are proving?

You're not even good at trolling. It's fucking pathetic.

I was raised in a strict protestant home and I have never heard God described as "Omnibenevolent". Never. Not in 18 years of sermons, and 13 years of Christian school.

God is wrathful and menacing to the disobedient. That's what I learned. Furious anger and the like. Who the fuck is teaching Omnibenevolence? That sounds like a joke. God is going to send trillions of people to hell. He isn't Omnibenevolent.

You just weren't aware that wikipedia knows what you believed better than you do. That's why wikipedia is known for being a solid source in all academic work.

>the world isn't a playground of candy rainbows therefore there is no god
really makes you think

>hurr no christian thinks god is onmnibenevolent!
>oh theres a whole category of christian thought devoted to reconciling his omnibenevolence with the existence of evil?
>hurr wikipedia y u so dumb? whats a lie?

Typical christian.

Well that's nice for Wikipedia but if some pastor had started preaching at me that God was Omnibenevolent, I would have started questioning things alot sooner than I did. By about 13 I knew that alot of it didn't add up but some pansy ass omnibenevolent God wasn't part of the problem.

Learn to read first. Then come back. You didn't even read the damn wiki correctly.

>if some pastor had started preaching at me that God was Omnibenevolent, I would have started questioning things alot sooner than I did

Guess what? They never shut up about gods omnibenevolence when they're out trying to recruit. It's almost like churches operate like cults, with one set of threats and plattitudes for the sheeple and another set of feel-good woowoo for the heathens.

From what I can tell the segment of Christianity that holds Omnibenevolence as a doctrine seems to be a very small percentage. I'm not sure its very intellectually honest to hold that doctrine against all Christians. I dont know a single one that would agree with it.

>hurr no u dumb

Hahaha, typical christian.

Shhh! Don't tell our resident troll. He knows better than you what you were taught.

I've been there though, man. For me it was a bit less about theodicy than it was about the actual on-the-ground reality of Christian morality, as well as some issues with science. Suffice it to say that it would have taken me a hell of a lot more time to abandon Christianity if it weren't for the fact that the vast, VAST majority of Christians are morally worse, more vindictive, and more greedy than even the general population.

That's a great theory too, but around these parts the only pastors I see preaching on the corners to strangers are holding GOD HATES FAGS signs. Not exactly an omnibenevolent sales pitch.

Sounds like you have alot of hippy dippy preachers in your neighborhood.

The word is a philosophical one and not used by everyday christcucks, but the concept is a universal one. Ever hear god described as "all-loving" or "perfectly good"?

desu that sounds like gnosticism

It is. It's pretty much the liberal denominations, and even then it's not really universally accepted among them. The old-school Universalists definitely did, but very few UU types today even identify as Christian. Maybe in the UCC you'll find some, and you'll find some in some corners of the PCUSA, ELCA, and ECUS. But any orthodox, confessional Christian does not teach omnibenevolence. They DO teach that God is infinitely good, but that isn't the same, even linguistically, as the notion of omnibenevolence.

Eh no, gnostics have no problem explaining the existence of evil. It's one reason the early church attacked them so hard, gnostics tend to dominate orthodox christians in debates because their explanations for evil are so much more plausible.

Catholics should be isolated and ignored. Violence against them would fulfill a deep-seeded wish; like some pervert paying the altar-boy to punch him in the nads.

But they're irrelevant at this point, so whatever.

I hear it every time some christcuck tries to sell his religion to me.

Omnibenevolence is a universal tenet of all branches of christianity, what are you talking about?
>Belief in God's omnibenevolence is an essential foundation in traditional Christianity; this can be seen in Scriptures such as Psalms 18:30: "As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the Lord is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him," and Ps.19:7: "The law of the Lord is good, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple."
>This understanding is evident in the following statement by the First Vatican Council[original research?]:
>>The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God, Creator and Lord of Heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every perfection. Since He is one, singular, completely simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, He must be declared to be in reality and in essence, distinct from the world, supremely happy in Himself and from Himself, and inexpressibly loftier than anything besides Himself which either exists or can be imagined.[8]
>The philosophical justification stems from God's aseity: the non-contingent, independent and self-sustained mode of existence that theologians ascribe to God. For if he was not morally perfect, that is, if God was merely a great being but nevertheless of finite benevolence, then his existence would involve an element of contingency, because one could always conceive of a being of greater benevolence.[9] Hence, omnibenevolence is a requisite of perfect being theology.[10]

So yeah. Rejecting the idea is the extreme minority view
>Some Hyper-Calvinist interpretations reject omnibenevolence. For example, the Westboro Baptist Church is infamous for its expression of this stance.

None of your quotes expresses omnibenevolence. Hell, even if you had taken elementary Latin you could work this shit through. It's not fucking hard.

>all-loving" or "perfectly good
No, infact that's not how God is decrived to me. God is not all loving, he Hates sin. Perfectly good? Not a term that I have ever heard used. Even so, smiting evil is perfectly good. Punishing sin is a good thing to do and perfectly carried out by God.

I'm still not seeing this omnibenevolent theme anywhere in what I was taught.

Also, the Westboro Baptist Church isn't even remotely Calvinist. Not even so-called hyper-Calvinist.

>literally denying the obvious

Whatever, retard. If you honestly think christains reject omnibenevolence then you're legitimately retarded. Go ask one.

>Westboro Baptist Church
>Theology
>>Primitive Baptist
>>Calvinist[1]

>Even so, smiting evil is perfectly good. Punishing sin is a good thing to do and perfectly carried out by God.

So you are familiar with the concept that god is all good, even tho you apparently never heard it in those terms. Everything he does is good, even the obviously wicked things. Even when he hates, its good.

Live in eternal agonizing hellfire. Very stable wow such a blessing yes. You are a retarded ideological robot who desperately clings to bed time stories. They aren't a replacement for idenity or objective meaning.

his troubles would be over user. For now, there is nothign to worry about, for his fate is sealed. Thus granting him, peace, for all eternity and WISDOM. From THE LORD

He's a Poe, learn to internet.

>Implying anything God does can be evil

Primitive Baptists aren't Calvinists. They reject significant portions of Calvin's and international Reformed theology. They don't subscribe to any historic Reformed confession.

Literally the only reason they call themselves or are considered Calvinists is because they deny free will and affirm "once saved, always saved" (which is itself not a Calvinist doctrine, and arguably, until the 18th century neither was the denial of free will). They reject nearly every tenet of Calvinist theology, but they claim to affirm the so-called "5 points" (which are no older than the 20th century) despite rejecting Calvinist ecclesiology, theology, Christology, soteriology, and sacramentology.

The only Baptist who come close to being, and could possibly be considered Calvinist, are those who adhere to the 1869 London Baptist Confession of Faith.

God can be omnibenevolent and not save cancer babies. What God may see as good does not have to conform to what we see as good. Maybe cancer babies are a result of some technology or radiation we created in our fallen state and thus cancer babies are a result of our sin. Punishment for sin is good(benevolent)"and will by universally (omni) applicable.

Likewise, god could exist and not be Omnibenevolent. Not everything that humans believe is true after all.

I am not sure about it either way. I'm just disturbed by your ferverent dogmatism about all Christians secretly believing in omnibenevolence. I know many who do not.

If it's so obvious, why do you continue refusing to spell it out? It shouldn't be hard.

You're not wrong. There is very little evidence in Catholic or Protestant theology that such a thing is taught. In fact, Alvin Plantinga exhaustively demolishes the strange strawman theodicy presented above, and he's one of the most widely reknowned Protestant philosophers.

I should add that Plantinga's supralapsarian is in fact a minority view among Calvinists. It would, in fact, be more amenable to so-called particular Baptists than it would to anyone subscribing to a Reformed confession. Still, even he doesn't say anything as retarded as our troll claims.

Yes, I understand your formulation of the concept. I am trying to explain that even if it is some archaic dogma, it is not what the majority of Christians believe when they say God is Good. They are not saying god never causes anyone to have ouchies. God does indeed cause a great deal of pain to a great many people, and it is good because it is necesaary. Omnibenevolence, if you really want to put it that way does exist as such bit its absurd to use that as some kind of argument against God.

Because he punishes sin he does not exist or he isn't omnibenevolent? Is that a reasonable argument?

I didn't say they were Calvinist, they're hyper-Calvinists. Also, referring to a denomination using the name of its parent is pretty standard, idk why this upsets you so much but the WBC is as much a "calvinist" denomination as it is a baptist one.
>Curt Daniel defines Hyper-Calvinism as "that school of supralapsarian Five Point Calvinism which so stresses the sovereignty of God by overemphasizing the secret [will of God] over the revealed will [of God] and eternity over time, that it minimizes the responsibility of Man, notably with respect to the denial of the word ‘offer’ in relation to the preaching of the Gospel of a finished and limited atonement, thus undermining the universal duty of sinners to believe savingly with assurance that the Lord Jesus Christ died for them." Daniel goes on to suggest that the real difference between "High" and "Hyper-" Calvinism is the word "offer"[9]
>Iain Murray adopts a different approach, putting the emphasis on the denial of a "universal command to repent and believe" and the assertion "that we have only warrant to invite to Christ those who are conscious of a sense of sin and need."[10]
>Jim Ellis argues that "adequately defining what constitutes the fundamental error of hyper-Calvinism" is problematic because many definitions "blur the distinction between it and legitimate Calvinism", and most of them include an apparent bias against Five Point Calvinism.[8] Ellis goes on to say that Hyper-Calvinism "consists of two fundamental errors: a denial of duty-faith and a resultant denial of the universal call of the gospel."

Fuck off with your plebbit lingo

>all Christians secretly believing in omnibenevolence

It's not a secret, they literally all do. You just expressed the doctrine in your pathetic "words don't mean what they mean when its about god!" apology, if you didn't believe god is omnibenevolent then you wouln't feel the need to make such an apology at all. You;d just say, "yes, sometimes god is a prick", or go the whole gnostic route and say "god is basically evil". But you didn't, instead you tried to explain away evil by a semantic game in order to make it compatible with the existence of an omnibenevolent god. Your own denial proves beyond doubt that you DO beleive god to be omnibenevolent.

See

>Because he punishes sin he does not exist or he isn't omnibenevolent? Is that a reasonable argument?

Yes, actually. Not that I've ever heard such an argument, but an omnibenevolent god would not punish sin, he'd be like the Buddha and love his enemies even as they sinned against him. But the actual argument is that babies literally die in agony from cancer. What sin is god punishing here?

>humans know what god do and don't

>I didn't say they were Calvinist
>Calvinist[1]

And, as I have said, they don't even meet the requirements for hyper-Calvinism. They aren't thinking in remotely-Calvinist terms. They are thinking in Baptist terms. WBC is more similar to the hypers than to actual Calvinists, but Calvinist they are not. They're far more similar to exclusivist cults wheren no one other than official cult-members are going to escape divine wrath -- and then, it doesn't really matter what you do, as long as you remain in the cult's good graces.

It's not "calvinist" because it has pretty much nothing in common with Calvinist/Reformed theology. It's like saying that a sect that believes in abortion, rejects papal authority, the sacraments, the immaculate conception, and any merit or necessity of attending mass is just "hyper-catholicism." The one has nothing to do with the other.

>Omnibenevolence, if you really want to put it that way does exist as such

I have no idea why you hate this word so much when its so central to your religion but okay, call it "infinitely benevolent" or "perfectly loving" or whatever euphamism you prefer. You realize that "omnipotence" isn't in the bible either? Do you deny that christians think their god is omnipotent?

Idk why you think that's my words when it's so obviously copypasted from wiki, but let me clarify: That was copy-pasted from wiki. I said "hyper-calvinist". But even if you want to be ridiculous, hyper-calvinists ARE calvinists.

>That was copy-pasted from wiki.
And you were already warned about how fucking stupid that is. Until you demonstrate even a minimally passing knowledge of any form of Christian theology, this thread is going to keep going this way. Because you have no fucking idea what you're talking about, and wikipedia has failed to help you.

Holy fucking shit you are a spastic. You demand I support my claim that they're calvinist, then mock me for doing so. WBC is calvinist, idk why this upsets you and I don't care. their calvinism isn't something I made up, they themselves claim it and its obvious from their practices.
>The vehemence with which Westboro Baptist Church denies God’s compassionate love for all people and declares others’ position of salvation reflects their belief in hyper-Calvinism. Calvinism states that man can do nothing to save himself from judgment; God elects those He will save (Romans 8:29-30). Hyper-Calvinism takes this further, saying since God alone elects those He will save, witnessing is futile. It also denies the concept of common grace—the beneficence God shows toward all His creation by providing good things (Matthew 5:45b) and holding back evil. This is a dangerous misconception about God’s grace that leads to great anxiety and doubt of a person’s own salvation. Westboro Baptist Church’s extreme hyper-Calvinism also explains why they do not care about offending people. They believe if a person is elect, he/she will believe, no matter what. They believe if a person is non-elect, he/she has absolutely no possibility of salvation. Therefore, hateful, angry, and vehement rhetoric does not matter, as it could not possibly change a person’s eternal destiny. Westboro Baptist Church rejects the idea that offending people could turn them away from faith in Jesus Christ.

It comes down to how strictly you want to define omnibenevolence with our own understanding of good and evil. What Christains believe is that we cant actually understand God's benevolence from our limited human perception and experience.

Yes God lets bad things happen to alot of people, constantly. Does that make the word good and benevolent irrelevant and meaningless? You say it does. They say that it makes God beyond our comprehension and more importantly beyond our judgement.

Just for a moment imagine that there was in fact a God of the Universe. I known its not what you believe bit just for a moment think about the implications of that being true. An eternal and all powerful God. How could you, a human being of infinitesimally small realm of reality and understanding begin to contemplate the criteria and responsibility and meaning of that power and how to use it. What could you possibly say and with what authority? You can tell God to save Cancer babies based on what?

Now imagine you are that God. You could do better? You would just stop all sin and stop all events and all time and all death and just have a dead static universe where nothing ever happens?

I'm not a believer anymore, I'm just advocating for the poor devils.

Again, stop quoting wikipedia and start going to the sources.

I mean, during 2000 to about 2015 it was cool to call yourself a Calvinist even if you had never heard of the ideas of concursus, definite atonement, the real spiritual presence, presbytery/classis, sabbath-keeping, covenant theology, et al.

Saying you're a Calvinist doesn't make you a Calvinist any more than saying you're Catholic makes you a Catholic. And you know it. Your ignorance is not as good as another's knowledge.

What you are describing is maybe 1% of christians views. Most christians never question their faith so they just unironically think that what the pastor says is true. The handful who do question but up against answers like "well, god is beyond our comprehension or judgement", or the classic "well, god moves in mysterious ways". the problem comes when you realize this is a non-answer and just a word game, because the apologists don't really have anything more to offer. Christians who get that far generally lose their faith or become fundamentalists in an all-or-nothing kind of gambit.

I dont hate the word. It just doesn't reflect what Christians believe when you represent it as "God should always be nice and never let anything bad happen, OR he doesn't exist."

I think sending Jesus to die for all man kinds sin and offer forgiveness to all sinners is benevolent and universally so.

>I think sending Jesus to die for all man kinds sin and offer forgiveness to all sinners is benevolent and universally so.

Why did it take his thousands of years to decide to do this? Did the millions who lived and died with no hope of salvation do something to deserve it? Why did he need to sacrifice himself to himself? Isn't that retarded? isn't he all powerful? Couldn't he just, NOT do that? Couldn't he just forgive us?

Probably because god operates in mysterious, breathtakingly cruel and inefficent ways.

Forgiveness is not justification.

And you don't need to defend your wrath toward people who wrong you. Why does God?

WBC don't call THEMSELVES calvinists you dope, Phelps was a calvinist and that theology forms the basis of the cult he founded but of course they have diverged since! They're still recognizably calvinst, tho, just as the Mormons are recognizably christians, and it is perfectly correct to refer to them as hyper-Calvinists despite their deviations from "orthodox" hyper-Calvinism (whatever you imagine such a thing to be, since you have appointed yourself arbiter of Calvinist sectarian purity-testing).

>What you are describing is maybe 1% of christians views

Well that's what I am trying to tell you about this strict secular understanding about omnibenevolence. Its not something Christians believe the way you take it to the rhetorical extreme.

You are giving me the 1% argument against God existing, that no more than 1% of Christians would recognize, and I am giving you the 1% explanation as to why your argument does not hold any sway doctrinally, that less than 1% of Christians would ever recognize.

Lets stop pretending that this omnibenevolence is somehow an earth shattering rebuttal of faith. Its not even relevant to 99% of Christians.

Bad things have happened to me too user. Some very bad things. And it destroy my faith that was as you described "the sheep" following the blind Shepard. But out of those ruins I have been able to go on my own quest. I cant tell you what to believe. I'm not even sure where I am anymore. I just know alot about Christains because I was one and faught battles with my faith for decades.

it's not about him being super duper nice or super duper mean. You're another Christian who doesn't understand your religion; why we get atheist trying to discredit it with stupid basic shit like this.
Just because God loves you and you're blessed doesn't mean you have an easy life at all times.
It does mean that more often that not if you believe in God and have faith, he will see you through hardships that come along. This is more so(but not always) when our suffering is self inflicted or a consequence of straying too far from God, via by actions or spiritually.
Now go away (in peace to love and serve the lord)...

I dont know the answers to that. I wish I did. In truth I am more a believer in a universal forgiveness. Not to be confused with universalism as a whole. To me this world, the realm of sin is its own hell. Salvation to me is universal. Bit I am just making up my own religion at this point.b

>Forgiveness is not justification.

What?

>And you don't need to defend your wrath toward people who wrong you

How, exactly, have I wronged god? By being born?

>Why does God?

Again, what? Have you READ the bible? he's forever justifying his wrath, all he ever seems to do in the prequels is boast about how wrathful he is.

Calling WBC Calvinists is like calling Methodists Calvinists. Actually, it's even less tenable. At least the Methodists have a solid historical background in the Anglican and Reformed churches.

And Mormons? They aren't recognizably Christian. Their Christian beliefs are about as solid as Muslims'. That is to say, they believe Jesus was a dude, but they deny literally everything Christianity has ever said about them other than that he was a person who existed. You didn't know that, because you didn't do the reading. You will never do the reading. Do the fucking reading. Stop embarrassing yourself.

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. And you keep digging the hole. Why are you so proud of your ignorance?

>Well that's what I am trying to tell you about this strict secular understanding about omnibenevolence. Its not something Christians believe the way you take it to the rhetorical extreme.

Preachers don't try to make arguments based on it like they do with omnipotence, because the last thing they want to do is make the sheeple start asking questions but it's a central doctrine of nearly all christians just like omnipotence is. But I can understand why they don't stress it in all denominations, although of course there are many denominations where the love of god is seen as his central defining aspect, for example Anglicanism / Episcopalianism.

>Lets stop pretending that this omnibenevolence is somehow an earth shattering rebuttal of faith. Its not even relevant to 99% of Christians.

I think your personal experience is the abberation, most christians here in Europe are of the happy-clappy "god is love" type. But even the strictest American hellfire church teaches the omnibenevolence of god, that's why they use expressions like "moving in mysterious ways" to explain the existence of natural evil.

Well I happen to agree, having reached this conclusion from the opposite direction (raised by good secular atheists, never belong to any church). If there is a god then either it is an evil being or everyone is saved, there's no squaring that circle imo.

>What?
Forgiveness is not justification. Did I stutter? Or did you fail to do the reading? You can even wiki that one.

>How, exactly, have I wronged god? By being born?
By being a sinner, according to Christian thought. Not only were you born with the condition of sin, but you regularly, daily, wrong him. A holy God cannot abide the presence of sin.

>Again, what? Have you READ the bible? he's forever justifying his wrath
You're the one who said, "couldn't he just forgive us?" Well, you don't have to. Why does he?

You are severely retarded. That's not a question. Mormons are christains, WBC are calvinists, despite the many deviations they have taken from these roots.

Little kids dying of cancer is a product of our own creation. If a human so chooses to walk off a cliff his god given free will allows him to, from which he would either die or learn his suffering is his own fault. Why should god save little kids if we as a race gave them cancer through all of our creations which would be our own free will. He gives us the power to reverse this if we follow our morals and try to fix the problem set before us however as greedy humans continue not to do what’s best for society and instead what’s best for our wallets and children will continue to die of cancer.

Its hard not to reach that conclusion for a honest and open thinking person. All these billions of people, all of them failing and suffering, trying hard to just get by. How could there be some special group of saved based on anything they believed or didn't believe. The God of the universe, who is universally powerful and universally forgiving doesn't universally forgive all? If no one can earn salvation and no one can deserve salvation, and no one can be saved by any act, then how can the act of holding a belief save you? No, salvation has to be universal or there is probably not a God at all.

>Mormons are christains
They deny the divinity of Christ.
They deny the Trinity
They deny the Law and Gospel of God
They deny every one of the historic creeds and councils
They deny monotheism
They deny the transcendence or spirituality of God

They are in fact less Christian than Muslims or Jews. Mormons are not remotely Christian.

>WBC are calvinists
See above. I can say I'm a black woman, but I'm white-skinned, no African ancestry, have a dick, and am attracted only to females. My claim to be a woman is false and meaningless.

>Forgiveness is not justification

So he needed us to accept that we had wronged him before he would save us? Why? Isn't that incredibly petty? Also, in what sense did we accept we had wronged him when he sent Jesus? most people REJECTED him, remember? But god forgave us anyway?

>according to Christian thought

I don't care what some child molester in a skirt says, I'm asking about god.

>born with the condition of sin

So yes I wronged him by being born. Because he loves me!

>but you regularly, daily, wrong him

By...? how does anything that happen on earth "wrong" god? That's like saying that when my lego tower falls over, it has "wronged" me and deserves to be punished.

>A holy God cannot abide the presence of sin.

Then why is his creation full of it? Isn't he all-powerful?

>You're the one who said, "couldn't he just forgive us?" Well, you don't have to. Why does he?

So god literally is a passive-aggressive little bitch in your mind? "I'll forgive him, but he has to GROVEL first! Because I love him!"

>cancer
>the sweet release of death
you've never foot in a hopital have you
>the fast track to heaven
what's wrong with just giving the kid a heart attack in his sleep or something

>They deny the divinity of Christ.
>They deny the Trinity

So do unitarians.

>They deny the Law and Gospel of God

No they don't, they simply add to it because the don't believe scripture is closed.

>They deny monotheism

So do trinitarians, and in the same exact way. All "gods" for mormons are "really" one god.

>They deny the transcendence or spirituality of God

So do gnostics.

And you still haven't presented any case against WBC's calvinism. What positions of theirs put them beyond the pale of hyper-Calvinism?

I must give you credit for continuing to argue with that cunt after he has shown nothing but dishonesty and stubbornness with nothing to show for it

so he may relish his transition from the physical realm, to the spiritual divinty of the pearly gates of the SAINT PETER to meet THE LORD

You are talking about a religion dude, a thing convoluted with get-out-of-jail-free cards, you have to talk to a guy with a straight phoneline to heaven to get a yes or no and "you just understood it wrong".

I agree that Mormons are not Christians anymore than Charles Manson was Jesus Christ. But indeed he deserves ++Good for the style. Neither side has gained any ground or compromised even slightly.

>one must suffer so they can get to heaven
Man, I'd hate to live in a world where lived a god with such power who loves people by making them suffer.

it is his REWARD for dying user. He gets to ENJOY his slow, painful, agonizing demise and return to THE LORD

But you do! Isn't it great!

I sacrifice FIVE goats daily and PRAY his gloryious THE LORD grants me DEATH as all shepherds grant their flock

I DON'T KNOW THE FIRST THING ABOUT THEOLOGY BUT I AM OMNISCIENT SO LET ME TELL YOU WHAT YOUR GOD IS THINKING

Suffering and death are also aspects of material existence, as much as an object must fall when released from the hand. Only moksha can free you from samsara. And yet, you arrogantly assume that you should be able to attain moksha instantly, or else this is evidence of God's evil nature! Do you suppose that the fact you cannot fly against the power of gravity when you wish it is evidence of the universe's evil nature?

>he literally doesn't understand that "little kids get cancer" suffices as a refutation of an omnibenevolent god
They were destined to become bad people later in life so God struck them down before their evil could take root

they forgot to praise him, obviously. Were probably fags too