Muh omnibenevolence

read you cretin
also it's not like we weren't warned you cuckold

Calvinists* think an 'omnibenevolent' being sends people to Hell, forever, knowingly.

Mortal sin, or that sin which separates Man from God, is a grave matter which is done with both full knowledge and intent.

Man is given a free choice to break his covenant with God, which is as it should be. Otherwise the covenant has no meaningful reciprocity-- We would be as simple as a dog or any other creation of His, lacking any higher nature. God does not therefore 'send' His creations anywhere-- they make a choice of their own volition, which wounds him greatly.

Just as your biological father allows you the opportunity to post shitty bait on a Manchurian typewriting forum instead of doing anything substantive with your life, God allows you to sin despite the fact that it disappoints him.

Now go forth, repent and believe in the Gospel.

You consider a book written 30 years after the event to be a sufficient warning? Simply because it mentions an empty tomb? K.

Which is more likely, someone resurrecting, or some fuckers writing some lies?

If i can predict everything a program will do, it is not free.
God can predict everything I will do, I am not free.

If you can predict the behavior of something, that thing has no free will, even less if you created it.

you're given a lifetime to figure everything out for yourself, you have no excuse
also

And for every Ummah (a community or a nation), there is a Messenger; when their Messenger comes, the matter will be judged between them with justice, and they will not be wronged. (Qur'ân 10:47)

And verily, We have sent among every Ummah (community, nation) a Messenger (proclaiming): "Worship Allah (Alone), and avoid (or keep away from) Taghut (all false deities, etc. i.e., do not worship Taghut besides Allah)." Then of them were some whom Allah guided and of them were some upon whom the straying was justified. So travel through the land and see what was the end of those who denied (the truth). (Qur'ân 16:36)

Then you have to accept that atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, pagans and the like who genuinely do believe with all their mental faculties that their religion is the right one at least get Purgatory, if only for their efforts at striving towards the good.

And no, simply throwing the Bible at them doesn't count as being knowingly warned.

This is more a failure of human understanding of the nature of existence than a failure in God's design. God is not bound by a traditional linearity of time as we understand it; God does not need to be bound by a timeline of A to B to C. Instead, God is immediately present in A, B and C, likely coimmediate in all possible variants of these scenarios as well. Realistically, it is the only way you would be able to consider God as omnipotent anyway, if he exists in all times and all places in a more radical sense. It is not a matter of prediction; it is a matter of all possible witness.

>God is chi

>accept that atheists... who genuinely do believe with all their mental faculties that their religion is the right one

Spicy, but true for once.

And no, simply throwing the Bible at them is not a reasonable warning. I would mostly agree with you on this point-- Let me take my personal example. I was not raised Catholic but took the Eucharist as a young man attending Mass with a family member without fully understanding the consequences. Not a mortal sin at all. What I will say however is the degree of culpability increases the more one is exposed to the teachings of the Church in a more substantive way. Many atheists are lapsed Christians; it is often a direct confrontation with God in their earliest years which forms the basis of their vileness toward Him. In such a situation, they are knowingly and intently breaking their relationship with God.

>God is chi rho*

>What I will say however is the degree of culpability increases the more one is exposed to the teachings of the Church in a more substantive way.

I was exposed to the Catholic Church in a very substantive way. I had to go to catechism classes, and I was 'confirmed' (i.e. coerced into taking the catechism). I know a fair deal of basic Catholic theology, from Aquinas' arguments to why they consider gay marriage to be wrong. And I staunchly reject all of it because ever since then I didn't feel any sort of relationship to any higher power at all.

>Otherwise the covenant has no meaningful reciprocity
The need for suffering and eternal damnation is countless time more arbitrary than that for an omnipotent omnibenevolent omniscient being to sustain. It stands in complete opposition to decency and seems worryingly close to some sort of omnicidal sadism.

Where we can find common ground is that I believe the Sacraments of Confirmation and Holy Communion are often given too early in a child's spiritual development. Faith is a sacred choice; to lead a child through a simplified order of catechesis and expect recidivism and moreover reverence for the Church after their inevitable teenage rebellion is somewhat ignorant of the circumstance of our day and age. The Fourth Lateran Council describes that those who participate in these Sacraments ought to be of an 'age of reason', which I would personally say ought to be just before full adulthood, perhaps 16 or so. That is probably how I will raise my own children, if I do not discern another vocation.

That said, I will be praying for you to take heed of the Lord's boundless forgiveness and return to His Church with utmost speed and clarity of thought.

I'll assume that we were both talking about the Roman Catholic Church and the sacrament of confirmation--in that case, yes, the least you guys can do is, if you insist on baptism a week or so after birth, give Confirmation much later. I understand that because of things like university, it may be tempting to try and get Confirmation over with before the child leaves home, but even then, I have to argue that 16 is still far too young.

At 16, kids are still concerned with having as much sex as possible, at 16 they're still dependent on their parents for literally everything, and at 16 they're still too immersed in Catholic culture to think of a world outside of it. Thus when they go through the Sacrament of Confirmation they aren't fully able to say "I reject Satan and all his works"--because they haven't been exposed to enough of quote unquote "Satan's works" to properly reject it. That's why I would urge Catholics, if they really insist on it, to teach their children the Catechism at a young age, but to hold off on Confirmation until around 21.

>You are a fucking psychopath.
Not an argument.

>If i can predict everything a program will do, it is not free.
Prove this premise please.

I would heartily disagree. I think even an atheist might see an initial ethical dimension in suffering, in that it is through suffering that personal growth is possible. Again, the most simple response to this is the example of a baby with a fatal heart condition; but again, this sort of example limits the means of that growth to this initial material existence. The bounds of existence for one of faith is not merely material; there is an eternal life beyond the physical one. This eternal life mind you weighs infinitely more than that of the physical life; a matter of eighty or ninety years cannot possibly overshadow an eternity with or without Him. In this way, suffering cannot possibly be arbitrary because its significance is eternal. And again, damnation is not given, it is taken.

Also... By what means can you judge God's decency? That is, what is the objective moral dimension by which you can make ethical calls as to whether God is decent or not? Please try not make a case about some innate biological dimension of morality, because you know where that loop returns to.

Biological? You can’t tell me what to do. How about god grants mankind free will in a world where it is impossible to sin or suffer because it is so perfect rather than a world where death and murder are fundamental parts of life? You know, a place like heaven? For all? That would remove the accusations of sadism. Sending a sinmer to hell is like punishing a retard for being dumb from a divine perspective.

I would say it is context dependent though. We cannot judge every 16 year old as equal in reason or readiness as every other 16 year old; it requires a genuine determination of their seriousness within the faith as well as their experience with the ills of the world around them. I know many who were ready for Confirmation when they were 14 or 15, whereas I know people in graduate school who are still to emotionally unready as to accept Christ in a more serious way into their lives. I am to be confirmed this Easter at 23, so that is where I fall for reference.

What is free will? The ability of your own brain to make its own decisions.

What is the ability of the brain to make its own decisions? A complex network of interactions that can be predicted using the laws of physics. Granted, nobody could ever build a computer powerful enough to do that for just one human being, but what matters is that it is possible in theory. So either human beings are not free either, or free will does not mean unpredictability.

In fact, I would argue that the very premise that free will = predictability comes from a time when we believed that free will was the action of some amorphous "soul" that somehow transcended the laws of physics. This is clearly false.

>You can’t tell me what to do
Why?

Because you are an anonymous poster on a Sinhalese silk spinning forum, you also can’t predict the merit of my arguments unless you are omniscient.

I don't see how that follows.
We have every right and reason to tell you what to do, it's not our fault you won't listen. "You can't tell me what to do" is an incredibly brainlet response as we can in fact tell you what to do, and sometimes we can even make you do it too.

Nobody cares about your complaints.

No you literally can’t, fucking make me you soyboy

>Says I literally can't
>I literally just did
No matter how much you scream and shout and stamp your feet, the world will not alter one molecule of its structure to appease your complaints of sadism.

Tell it to the Judge user.

Are you retarded? Do you even understand what I’m saying here?

>unironically thinking you are a better judge than the all knowing, most just God
Fedoraism at its peak. Hell is earned, just like heaven.

>b-but why do babies die and shiet!!! Checkmate theists
False premise. You see death as the final end of the existence since you don't recognize the existence of the afterlife, unlike a religious person.

>Do nothing to convince them you are real
ever heard of Jesus?

>Why did God not create Candyland?

Because God saw that Snakes and Ladders was a much better game (kidding).

This question bothered me for quite a while before I came into my faith; I was reading a lot of antinatalist literature at the time (Zapffe, Cioran, et cetera). Essentially, we might say that their argument was that life is pain; and that pain is bad, whereas absence of pain is neutral; and so the logical solution which caused the least amount of pain was to willingly enter a species-wide suicide pact, or at least a pact not to birth a new generation who might experience suffering. I suppose my answer is that He sees that what is and will be is greater than that of the potentiality of a stagnant Eden; that the material, immortal framework of an earthly paradise leads in some way to a human failure in understanding the redemptive power of His love. Again, through suffering comes greater understanding. I believe that holds true even in the face of evil.

If this does not hold true for you, there's always the option espoused by the antinatalists, but I would highly urge you not to take that path.

Where was this messanger in pre Columbian America?

You still have that charming place called hell to deal with
The prophet with the Golden Plates from mormonism, duh

Again, Hell is a chosen state of being. And again, there's not an entire sense of continuity that Hell is the literal boiling lake of fire; rather there is a sense that Hell is simply an eternal lack of communion with God, which burns the soul in lacking that love which He provides. It is eternal not because we are cast from Him, but because we continually renew our disavowment from Him. In fact, such a conception is very similar to how many people deal with him in their earthly lives. Simply put, God does not create Hell for man; Man creates Hell for themselves in spite of God.

And God created the entire scenario where this could happen. See the problem here? The ultimate cause, the prime mover, the origin of sin of suffering of damnation of separation of solitude of desolation is always God

Yes.
You are saying I can't tell you what to do.
Meanwhile I am doing exactly that.

You don’t understand, It’s an expression. It means you literally can’t force me to not type something. You are physically incapable of doing that unless you are sitting right next to me

>See the problem here?
Nope.
I only see a little baby that's scared of responsibility and consequences.

>God is in every moment
But we are not. We live in linear time, and God knows the chain of events, even if simultaneously every event.
Still. no. free. will.

>"A book written 30 years after the events claiming miracles is convincing enough".
Brilliant.

It's a stupid expression, a childish non argument.
That's my point.
I can't MAKE you not stick a fork into the wall outlet but that doesn't somehow invalidate the argument that tells you that you shouldn't.

Saying "you can't tell me what to do", is tantamount to admitting that you're wrong but you're going to do it anyway, very juvenile.

Don't even know if it exists.
Have the belief that you in all honestly think is true.
>"Hell is chosen".
Sure, bro.

I’m just calling out how garbage this theodicy is. Are you saying that the problem of evil is not a problem? Do you like a demiurge ruling you?

Maybe god just knows all the possible lines of fate simaltaneously, and free will emerges from his lack of interference. If he chose the fate it'd mean no free will. But he doesn't. Lets the chips fall where they may after we toss them

>Still. no. free. will.
You keep repeating this but that doesn't make it so.

>Are you saying that the problem of evil is not a problem?
Correct.

>Do you like a demiurge ruling you?
Gnosticism is for brainlets and was rightfully crushed by the Christian Church.
>Waah the Creator of the universe is evil for creating the universe but the Monad isn't evil for emanating the creator of the universe.
Retarded self contradictory esoteric nonsense.

Tajes one to know one. Screeching about a throwaway line you don’t like instead of actually replying to the argument reeks of autism

The origin of sin is with man; if you mean to say that God is culpable for the creation of man, then I am not quite sure what to tell you. Personally, I am willing to live in a fallen world with the possibility of eternal redemption through our Lord Jesus Christ. If you feel that to not be is somehow better than the infinite potentiality of being, then I suppose that is an uncrossable boundary for our two modes of thought. I would urge you to seek the good in your life and turn away from such a negative view of reality, even if only for your own mental health in the here and now.

Heaven and Hell are not real states of being. It basically just means you've worked hard enough to be a good enough person that you could theoretically live forever and be happy despite the misery of the world for all of time(in the case of heaven), or you screw things up so irreparably and through ignorant conscious effort make life for you and others so terrible that you're living in hell, and always will be unless you seek to reconcile with the world and work towards some kind of goodness. The afterlife doesn't exist, but assuming it does and making a genuine effort to be worthy of it is basically just asking humanity to work towards the long game, instead of being TOTALLY selfish assholes and leaving humanity to buckle it own selfishness across generations

So you agree that I’m right about the free will defense? Good. That was all I was trying to convey.

> t. Jordan P. Beterson

My problem with god is not rooted in morality, I just have a problem with these theodicies which are flawed attempts to rationalize the behavior of god. Just admit that you don’t know, god will explain in heaven no?

No I don't agree at all and reject your premise entirely, I'm saying that resorting to gnosticism as a refuge from the "problem" of evil is retarded.

This also helps cut out some of the melodrama of good v evil. Good = right. Evil = wrong. Its not a matter of what you think is right, its what IS right, and whether you understand and live according to that in your particular capacity. We're all hapless former monkeys trying to keep the species strong and be happy while doing it. Honestly doesn't sound that bad 2 me

We don't know if something can be simultaneously within the laws of physics and unpredictable. We don't even know the laws of physics completely yet.

I must admit I now have slight doubts if free will = unpredictability. But if I had to choose a binary answer, I would say it does.

Straight up

When you start speculating your own new theology in order to win an argument.

He knows "all the possible lines of fate simultaneously" and He knows which one is fulfilled. He predicts everything, and thus there is no free will.

It is not see If you reject my premise by all means then continue speaking

Just trying a different but maybe pointless perspective. No argument to be won here

Hell is absolutely chosen. Again, return to the definition of mortal sin, or that which breaks man's communion with God; grave matter, with full intentionality and knowledge.

We continue to choose to sin in our everyday lives despite the fact we can openly choose to repent and follow Him. Saint Dismas learned this in his last moments of mortal life. He is among the number of holy Saints now, rejoicing Christ's name in Heaven. You may be too some day-- I hope that you will be.

>God is not responsible.
Anyone who tells you God is not responsible for literally any thing is an actual heretic.

Attached: 1514980370436.jpg (512x512, 108K)

I have two questions.
Can you provide me with an objective definition of evil, and do you believe in free will.

They are attempts to convey an underlying truth in response to the errors which you provide in attempt to convince others away from the faith. I will be first to admit that my flaws prevent me from concepting the perfection of God; to say I fully rationalize Him and His creation would be absolute vainglory. What I mean to do rather is to give some semblance of why He may work as He does, or at least provide that which might call into question your own thought process in the matter.

-Everything that exists despite God’s supposed omnibenevolence in this context
-I don’t know if free will exists

>Everything that exists despite God’s supposed omnibenevolence in this context
That's too vague.
How can I know what contradicts omnibenevolence if you won't tell me what evil is?

I am right now holding the belief that I in all honesty think is true. If I "knew" that sin was even a thing, I would not do it.
There is no choice without knowledge.

Are you saying that I will not be judged for these supposed sins because I don't know that God exists, right now?

Evil is the conscious infliction of suffering.
God created Hell, he lets people go to it without making sure they are given convincing evidence for his existence.

If I had been given convincing evidence for His existence, I would be a Christian right now.

GOD FORGIVES ALL so yeah. Jesus asked his dad to forgive the soldiers crucifying him "for they know not what they do". Knowledge vs ignorance. Evil is just knowing rejection of truth. And since none of us really know, God has to forgive us all. Dayumn

>Evil is the conscious infliction of suffering.
How do you reconcile the problem of evil with the problem of consciousness when using this definition of evil?
By which I mean would you kindly support your assertion that consciousness is an actual phenomenon and not an illusion?

Leaving that aside though your definition of evil is still too vague as all you have done is define evil as the state of existence itself.
>existence requires the conscious and persistent infliction of suffering as life feeds on life furthermore even if a being refrains from consuming life to sustain it's own it still consciously inflicts suffering on itself, thereby making the simple state of being alive a conscious infliction of suffering and therefore evil.
You really must be more specific.

You seem to be mistaking knowledge with intentionality. Knowledge is in many cases unavoidable; even if someone may not have the intentionality of defying God when they steal, they still may and likely will have the knowledge that thievery is morally unacceptable. Intentionality is tricker, but you grew up in the faith and abandoned it, as I understand. This intentionality in knowing God's moral laws but choosing specifically to defy Him instead leads you into cases of mortal sin.

Complete definition aside, one thing is certain, letting people go to Hell forever because of their honest beliefs, is evil.
To claim otherwise is simply absurd, and I will not hold such a ridiculous view.

I believe you can define things by excluding what it is not. How do I know it exists despite omnibenevolence? Because it furthers a vicious cycle that could be avoided with omnipotence and omniscience yet it’s not.

>Complete definition aside, one thing is certain, letting people go to Hell forever because of their honest beliefs, is evil.
I disagree furthermore this statement contradicts the previously given incomplete definition because denying hell to a person that honestly believes they should go to hell is a conscious infliction of suffering.

>I will not hold such a ridiculous view.
No one cares.

"knowing God's moral laws but choosing specifically to defy Him"
I don't even know if God exists, let alone His religion, how would I even "know His moral laws"?

Even when I sometimes lean (because of the Kalam argument), towards the existence of a God, I most certainly believe that He is not Christian, so why would I follow a false religion? I would be insulting God.

>a vicious cycle
What vicious cycle is that exactly?

>it could be avoided
Why should it be?

>This statement contradicts the previous one.
Let's dismiss it, then.

Letting people go to Hell is evil. No omnibenevolent being would even create Hell, let alone think that people should go to it.

Pope Benedict XVI was certainly open to the view that the unbaptized might necessarily find Christ through their own means and attain salvation. I do not think it is that radical to believe either. However, those who are given the gift of Baptism only to deny its power on them are gravely in error.

-Ending up in hell despite God being able to prevent that perfectly ofc
-so the three omni’s stay true. Otherwise demiurge.

>"Hell is not fire"
This is clearly wrong.
carm.org/what-are-the-verses-that-mention-hell

>Hell is not necessarily a literal boiling lake of fire*

Why do you openly twist my words to suit you? Besides, I would strongly reject any purely literalist interpretation of the Bible.

You know His moral laws because they are embedded in you. Unless you find no qualm with showing pornography to your loved ones, find murder to be acceptable, and steal at every given opportunity to advance your own personal wealth, I have strong reasons to doubt that you are not knowledgeable of the moral law. Especially given your period of catechesis. Knowledge does not necessarily mean you have faith in God necessarily; but that you know in your heart the given act to be an immoral one as opposed to a moral one.

I believe that intentionality is already present seeing that you openly reject the gift of your Baptism, which left an indelible mark on your soul.

So God should override the opinion of those who choose Hell? We've defined earlier that damnation is deliberately chosen, not accidentally stumbled into.

Being tortured forever for something you did finitely is stupid.

Yeah, you got it

Attached: Christian-Natalism.gif (359x253, 1.97M)

Define what you mean by "torture".

>>Do nothing to convince them you are real

God didn't create the universe and give mankind the sense to see it, feel it, hear it, touch it, and taste it?

Are you sure?

(Are you fucking retarded?)

How is a person spiritually dead for a finite time?

Is putting people in boxes and burying them in the ground for temporarily dying okay?

>-Ending up in hell despite God being able to prevent that perfectly ofc
How is that a "vicious" cycle exactly?
>the three omniscient
Just because you falsely claim not to wish to go to hell does not mean that sending you to hell is not an act of benevolence.

Its to preserve their bodies as memento of the deceased.

it isn't and god should fix it

>one hour and 34 minutes ago
Because it repeats and it is vicious, as this world full of murder and pain reinforces it, god could perfectly have created a world for humans(with free wil) without sin-as-described-in-the-bible but he did not
>Just because you falsely claim not to wish to go to hell
absolute religious babble, just because your theology told you that this is what people like me want doesn’t mean it reflects reality at all.