/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19033435]

why did he put an apple in eden and then took away adam's and eve's capacity of knowing right from wrong thus dooming them to eat the apple?

[Anonymous No.19033443]

>>19033435
Because the christian god is not all-knowing, all-powerful or entirely good, this is an objective fact even purely via scripture

[Anonymous No.19033445]

>>19033435
It's just a prank bro

[Anonymous No.19033452]

>>19033435

[Anonymous No.19033453]

>>19033435
god did it on purpose. humans were never supposed to stay in eden

[Anonymous No.19033494]

>>19033435
A god with a nigger mindset, a nigger god.

[Anonymous No.19033500]

God made humanity fall in order to further glorify Himself.

[Anonymous No.19033504]

Why did he allow talking serpents in his own garden?
How did a snake even develop the ability to speak?

[Anonymous No.19033514]

>>19033435
Because the authors came up with that

[Anonymous No.19033542]

>>19033435
>>19033443
>>19033452

Gnostic faggotry shilled by occult niggers.

To answer OP’s question, Man chose the Apple out of his own free will and God places it there as a test.

[Anonymous No.19033545]

>>19033542
Cope, nigger. Your "God" is a faggot, in his own story.

[Anonymous No.19033551]

>>19033514
Based and redpilled

[Anonymous No.19033581]

>>19033542
what free will nigga, its explicitly said the apple was knowledge about right and wrong. How can you have free will if you dont know what you're doing? Are you a retard?

[Anonymous No.19033633]

I dunno, only if there was this big book that explained how overcoming human suffering makes you a better person

[Anonymous No.19033671]

it sure is reddit in here..

[Anonymous No.19033687]

>>19033435
It was more likely a fig, apple trees aren't native to the Israel-Palestine region, Adam and Eve cover themselves with fig leaves, and figs feature in other parts of the Hebrew bible.

[Anonymous No.19033709]

>>19033633
In the absence of that book, tell us how overcoming human suffering makes us better people.

[Anonymous No.19033729]

>>19033709
for starters, you'll be less of a bitter loser bitch

[Anonymous No.19033740]

>>19033729
christians are the real losers - why else would they believe in jewish fairytales?

[Anonymous No.19033751]

>>19033504
Seraphim

[Anonymous No.19034004]

Filtered atheist, la hawla wa la quwwata illa billa

[Anonymous No.19034014]

>>19033435
>being filtered by a book literal plebs used to read several centuries ago

[Anonymous No.19034056]

>>19033581
You can still make a free choice without knowing the consequences of your actions, the real question is why would God intentionally test creatures who don't know the consequences of disobeying him

[Anonymous No.19034064]

>>19034056
>who don't know the consequences of disobeying him
"but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die"
Genesis 2:17

[Anonymous No.19034074]

>>19033435
>took away adam's and eve's capacity of knowing right from wrong
what

[Anonymous No.19034124]

>God created a garden that the devil could enter
>God created Adam, who was able to he tempted
>as if that wasn't enough, He created Eve, a gullible woman that easily betrayed Adam
>God set everything up so that the fall would be inevitable, and soon
It's like making a shoddy building and blaming its fall on its "free will" (the sum of how resilient you made it, the weather, possible saboteurs, and so on).
Most answers I've heard are just a re-explaining. Never a justification. But the lack of a need for a justifications just shows how God can do something "evil" and there would be no ground on which a Christian could call it evil. Tell me again how this is the antidote to modern nihilism?

[Anonymous No.19034130]

>>19034074
They didn't know right from wrong before eating the apple even though God told them or implied that it would be wrong to eat the apple.

[Anonymous No.19034149]

>>19034014
Plebs were retarded with no critical thinking so this doesn't count as an argument.

[Anonymous No.19034184]

>>19034130
>didn't know right from wrong before eating the apple even though
Yes. The experience of "knowing" right in relation to wrong (as opposed to knowing good in itself) is precisely what the fall is.

>>19034124
>Never a justification.
We do not need to justify God to the bugman rationalist/emotionalist paradigm. God is entirely above needing such justification or lawyering.

[Anonymous No.19034194]

>>19034124
>God can do something "evil"
God did not create Adam's choices, so He did not do anything "evil". Adam's free will was as resilient as could be for someone who was not Christ. It was his own falling away from this resilient free will that corrupted it and allowed future humans to blame God for their own sins.

[Anonymous No.19034214]

>>19034194
>God did not create Adam's choices,
So he isn't all knowing?

[Anonymous No.19034222]

>>19033435
>why did he put an apple in eden
Stopped reading there. There is no mention in the bible or anywhere else that it was an apple.

[Anonymous No.19034242]

>>19034214
Knowledge and creation isn't the same. God foreknew the entirety of creation in eternity, but this does not make you or me eternal, nor our choices.

[Anonymous No.19034245]

>>19033500
Wholly based

[Anonymous No.19034259]

>>19033500
>random unordained anglo inventing his own teaching
Wholly bug

[Anonymous No.19034260]

>>19034242
So then he isn't all powerful.

[Anonymous No.19034266]

>>19034260
He has all the power to create us as automatons with fully determined choices, but He also has the power and will to have chosen not to.

[Anonymous No.19034273]

>>19034259
Calvin was not an anglo, you ignorant reprobate.

[Anonymous No.19034279]

so we could understand ptsd or something

[Anonymous No.19034280]

>>19034273
>French
Then it's even worse than I thought...

[Anonymous No.19034299]

>Both systems, however, the emanational and that of Christianity, leave unanswered the question which they regard as beyond the power of the human mind to solve, although they make some attempt to do so: namely, how did the degradation of Being take place? The way this question is formulated varies according to the conception of the Absolute: in the first case it is 'Why did the One give rise to the manifold?', in the second 'Why did God create the world?' The one in Plotinus's thinking, like the Creator in Augustine's, is characterized by absolute self-sufficiency, and it would be blasphemous to suppose that the needed other beings or lacked anything that could be supplied by the created world. Nor can the question 'Why?' be asked in the sense of discovering an external cause that could influence the will of God or the emanational activity of the Absolute. A being which is completely self-sufficient, lacking and needing nothing, unable to be more perfect than it is, cannot display to the human mind any 'reason' prompting the act of creation. The very notion of an Absolute Creator contains within itself a kind of contradiction: if absolute, why does he or it create human kind? If created reality includes evil - even though we regard this evil as mere negation, defect, or insufficiency - how can we explain its presence in a world brought into being by an Absolute which is itself supreme Power and supreme Goodness?

[Anonymous No.19034330]

>>19034184
>We do not need to justify God to the bugman rationalist/emotionalist paradigm. God is entirely above needing such justification or lawyering.
"Just have faith bro. Wait, but not in those other religions."

[Anonymous No.19034341]

>>19034266
Then he is not an all loving being because he had the power to intervene to stop the process of evil but he never did.

[Anonymous No.19034355]

>>19034184
>never a justification
Once again, moral nihilism. Morality doesn't mean anything save for "what God does," which even then can be fired, edited, or interpreted a multitude of ways. There's no weight given to the "laws writ upon our heart," only what God does. If that means telling you to sacrifice your only child, it's good.

>the experience of knowing right...
How do you know right in itself, and why would God tell Adam not to eat the fruit (and the consequences- thereby telling him not to do a wrong act) if you say he did not know the good in relation to what is wrong?

>>19034194
God did create Adam's choices because He exists outside of time and made it so that everything that He desires to happen, will happen. Of course, He did not directly influence Adam to commit these acts, like Satan did, but He indirectly did so by putting Him in that situation, creating an angel He knew would fall and tempt Adam, creating a woman He knew would betray Adam, and knowing that Adam would fall in the future(and despite this, making such an Adam). The culpability is still there.

For instance, God could have made it so that Adam's will was impervious. There's nothing necessary about Adam's will being resilient- God could have created the universe and the parameters of Adam's will differently. He could have chosen differently, and yet He chose to make a vulnerable being; my example, which you ignored, still stands.

>>19034266
If He created us as automatons, that would still be good, because it would have been the act of an omnivenevolent God. If whatever God does is good, who are we to judge Him?

Besides, even if God worshiped free will (which is not really free, it's just the linchpin of Christainity that allows for theodicies and sending to Hell), He could make a creation that could choose Him or Hell, and yet which would invariably choose Him over Hell due to how strong He made their will.

[Anonymous No.19034360]

>>19034355
Instead of "fired," I meant forged.

>>19034330
It's practically nihilism. With it you can justify both slave-owning and slave-freeing. It's a whore of Babylon.

[Anonymous No.19034405]

>>19033542
Tests and experiments are pointless for a being that knows all. And if “free will” is independent of, or even supersedes God’s wills, that would imply this metaphysical free will is some causa sui outside of God.
This creates a paradox.
1. There is an omnipotent all-creating God, the deity who is the willful source of all of existence.
2. He creates something he cannot be responsible for.
Anything that exists must be a willful and intentional creation of his, and thus he is responsible for it. But if he is truly omnipotent his power must have no bounds, so he can choose to create something outside of his responsibility, but if he is the willful source of all that exists, he must the willful source of himself, as he exists, and thus his choices and thus responsible for making himself not responsible, but his responsibility cannot be absolved as he is the willful creator of all, but he’s omnipotent, and this impossible problem goes on and on. So if we are just to simply accept God is the author of all, he must be responsible for all, even actions done by human will, as otherwise you are implying we are beyond his authorship, and if so, we would enter paradoxical incomprehension where no real argument for either side can be made.

[Anonymous No.19034488]

>>19034405
>willful source of himself
God is not a creation.

[Anonymous No.19034511]

>>19034488
That's why it's a logical paradox idiot

[Anonymous No.19034571]

>>19034355
>Morality doesn't mean anything save for "what God does,"
There is no morality outside of what God does. The law inscribed upon your heart is exactly that, it's not detached from God. There is no abstract moral law detached from the personal God. All principles like Good, Love, Beauty, Truth are personal, not abstract.

>God did create Adam's choices
Adam's choices were not predetermined creations, so no. Adam did chose them in time, God knowing it outside of time does not create Adams own experience of chosing, which is a mode of being of his own will, not an eternal predetermined creation of God.
>The culpability is still there
Literal satanism. You're trying to blame God for the sins Satan and Adam committed without being forced and having the ability not to commit them.

>yet He chose to make a vulnerable being
So? The vulnerable being was not predetermined to fall. Fall was only potentia in Adam, Adam actualized it himself by experiencing corrupted free will.

>He could
He could, yet He in his infinite goodness did not. He did not want humans to be automatons. It is not human nature as created and envisioned in God's divine plan for creation.
>due to how strong He made their will
He made Adam's will strong, but Adam's subjective experience of a perceived good outside of God weakened and corrupted his will.

>>19034405
>willful source of all of existence
False premise. God is only a willful source of all creation, not all existence. The Son and the Holy Spirit are not a result of the Father's will.

[Anonymous No.19034802]

>>19034571
"but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die"
Genesis 2:17

How could Adam know that dying is bad if he didnt know good from evil before eating?

[Anonymous No.19034878]

>>19034056
He did tell though. He told that if they eat from the tree they would die, which did happen, death entered into the world after they ate the fruit.

[Anonymous No.19034936]

>>19034571
>False premise. God is only a willful source of all creation, not all existence. The Son and the Holy Spirit are not a result of the Father's will.
Even if you want to take this to the more specific Christian level, the Trinity is one God. I think this can still fit my premise, with one God being the willful source of all existence. Otherwise, if you separate God’s will from all existence including that of his own (including the Trinity in this case too), then you’ll have removed God’s position as the prime mover.

[Anonymous No.19035096]

>>19034936
>willful source of all existence
Existence is not an act-will of God. God does not "will" existence.
Everything proceeding from the will of the Father is necessarily a creation, but the Son and Holy Spirit are not products of will, since they share in this same divine will of the Father and do not cause themselves.
So He is not the "willfull source of all existence", since the Son and Holy Spirit have true existence but are not willed by anyone.

>God’s position as the prime mover
The idea of prime mover only makes sense in relation to creation. In eternity, only the Father can be called "prime mover" (rather, unoriginate cause) since He causes everything which has existence, either by nature (Son and Holy Spirit) or by creation (material world, humans, etc). So "prime mover" as an eternal property isn't even a shared property of all three persons.

[Anonymous No.19035097]

>biblical literalism
its just an easy way of explaining how morality came to be. literalism doesn't take you far in theology.

[Anonymous No.19035107]

>>19035097
>literalism doesn't take you far in theology.

[Anonymous No.19035127]

>>19034802
>How could Adam know that dying is bad
He did not know it was bad. He only knew that the commandment was good and it was good to follow it. "knowledge" of bad and of death only came when directly experiencing in the fall.

[Anonymous No.19035130]

>>19033687
I thought that it was mostly agreed opon that Eden was in modern day iraq

[Anonymous No.19035145]

>>19035127
How did he know good without eating the apple?

[Anonymous No.19035153]

>>19033435
Because interrogating the logic of mythical stories is a fool's errand. The purpose of this story is to explain why humanity is flawed and living in a fallen world, while also warning against disobeying the will of the divine. The story is not supposed to be rational; it is supposed to convey and instill values of the people who created it.

0RADD

[Anonymous No.19035155]

>>19035107
it does not. if the bible were meant to be taken literally, christianity wouldn't be so intertwined with morality. most axioms could be waved away as merely only being relevant to groups of people such as the 'moral codes' in leviticus and deuteronomy.

[Anonymous No.19035172]

>>19035145
God created Adam in his image and Adam was in communion with God, who is the very source of goodness.

[Anonymous No.19035178]

>>19035155
Literal does not mean there aren't multiple layers of figurative meaning to the literal events.

[Anonymous No.19035180]

>>19033435
Eden was a garden with many things inside and he charged Adam and Eve with taking care of that garden. They knew that disobeying God's command was wrong. Even if they knew nothing else that alone makes them completely guilty.

[Anonymous No.19035195]

>>19035178
except it does. literal implies (only) literal. if you want mixed then say mixed.

[Anonymous No.19035207]

>>19035153
>Genesis
>mythical stories

[Anonymous No.19035208]

What is the tale of Adam and Eve REALLY about?

[Anonymous No.19035213]

>>19035195
>literal implies (only) literal

[Anonymous No.19035215]

>>19035172
Why is Adam a retard then?

[Anonymous No.19035216]

>>19035208
That being a bugman advaitin and choosing Godhood without God's cooperation is evil and leads to death and destruction.

[Anonymous No.19035219]

>>19035207
Regardless of whether you are Christian or not, to read Genesis as anything other than myth is to be ignorant of ancient literary tradition.

[Anonymous No.19035224]

>>19035208
People have read many meanings into it. My favourite one is the spin that the eating of the apple is a metaphor for Man gaining self-consciousness and rising above mere animal instinct, leading to the tragic state of affairs that is modern Man.

[Anonymous No.19035225]

>>19035215
It was not low intelligence, but the desire to become God while circumventing God that lead to the fall. The lapse in intelligence and its corruption happened only in the fall, hence Adam hiding from God under some trees and thinking God wouldn't see him.

[Anonymous No.19035226]

>>19035207
>>19035219
btw, I should mention that I'm using "myth" not to mean "false belief," but rather in the sense of a story that is meant to convey the origin and values of a people.

[Anonymous No.19035237]

>>19035225
Alright so he knew what good is before eating the apple. He knows that not obeying god is not good. Why did he need the apple then?

[Anonymous No.19035241]

>>19035219
>ancient literary tradition
Genesis would be the origin of all ancient literary and oral tradition. All humanity stems from Adam and his descendants clearly knew the story of Eden and transmitted it to their children. Over time, as humans got more degenerate and more idolatrous, the tradition got corrupt with the only uncorrupt version remaining in Christianity.

[Anonymous No.19035258]

>>19035226
>a story that is meant to convey the origin and values of a people
Sure, I can agree with the understanding that it is a true story relayed by God through Moses.

[Anonymous No.19035271]

>>19035224
>rising above mere animal instinct
Is that why Adam (and all humanity) starts being more animalistic after the fall?

[Anonymous No.19035278]

>>19035237
>Why did he need the apple then?
what
he didn't need it, he wrongly desired it.

[Anonymous No.19035287]

>>19035213
you should read up on your biblical literalism, anon-kun.

[Anonymous No.19035290]

>>19035241
>Genesis would be the origin...
Yes, it would be....IF it is literally true. However, there is no reason to think it is. Indeed, there are several mythemes within the story that seem to have been borrowed from the myths of surrounding peoples (Canaanites, Babylonians, etc.), which would suggest that there are older stories that form the foundations of literary traditions.

[Anonymous No.19035296]

>>19035278
So the apple was worthless and got just put it there as a bait?

[Anonymous No.19035299]

Why did God create the Fruit?

[Anonymous No.19035304]

>>19035299
Adam needed vitamin C

[Anonymous No.19035306]

>>19035296
>>19035299
Why do people ignore that the garden was full of trees that Adam and Eve could eat from freely. It was only one tree among countless others.

[Anonymous No.19035320]

>>19035306
Why did an all knowing god knowingly create a fruit that he knows a man with "free" will is gonna eat

[Anonymous No.19035323]

>>19035299
To give humans a chance to lose paradise. They had to be capable of committing evil in order to have the capacity to choose good.

[Anonymous No.19035324]

>>19035290
>there is no reason to think it is
Knowing it is a direct revelation of the Holy Spirit is a very good reason for me. Shame you choose not to participate in His gifts though so you lack knowledge.
>borrowed from the myths of surrounding peoples
Or the other way around, if you don't have a prejudiced and bugman anti-Genesis bias. There is no good reason to believe the borrowing went the way you imply.
>older stories that form the foundations of literary traditions.
There are no literary records from Adam's time, which would be the oldest foundation. That you can't find these destroyed writings does not mean they didn't exist. You literally have to assume Genesis is false to even begin to create this fantastical Cannanite-Babylonian-borrowing worldview. It's laughably circular but pretends to be something else.

[Anonymous No.19035325]

>>19035320
STOP ASKING QUESTIONS

[Anonymous No.19035336]

>>19035320
Adam would partake of the fruit when he would be ready, when he stood firm in doing good, when he wouldn't be able to fall anymore because he would know bad as God does, externally, without it corrupting him.

[Anonymous No.19035339]

>>19035320
I'm not an all knowing God so I wouldn't know

[Anonymous No.19035360]

>This God is all powerful, clearly he is subject to human-imagined paradoxes!
It is called faith for a reason, brainlets.

[Anonymous No.19035366]

>>19035339
Then stop talking about God.

[Anonymous No.19035371]

>>19035360
Why does the bible exist if you only need faith?

[Anonymous No.19035372]

PLOT HOLE: What passage of Genesis did G-d create the evil snake

[Anonymous No.19035374]

>>19035366
That doesn't follow. I know what God allows me to know, and other things of the world remain a mystery to me. I can accept that but you apparently can't.

[Anonymous No.19035380]

>>19035324
It is, in fact, not circular but rather based on the archaeological evidence. We have older writings from places like Mesopotamia, that employ stories similar to those found in Genesis. You can, of course, propose that Genesis is older and that we simply don't have older existing copies of the written version. However, while that COULD feasibly be true, the surviving evidence suggests that the Genesis account is newer than these other sources and, thus, may have borrowed from them. I'm not pretending that this is the only possibility, but it's the one most supported by the textual evidence.

[Anonymous No.19035384]

>>19035371
No idea, but tripping youself up over an all powerful creator doing impossible shit in a creation myth is just you being stupid, nothing else.
>If we apply these restrictions to a being with none the it _blah blah blah

[Anonymous No.19035390]

>>19035384
I'm not applying any restrictions I'm just asking to bait prideful brainlets into explaining god's plan to me thus making them fall for a mortal sin

[Anonymous No.19035398]

>>19034004
Wallawalla yourself, goatfucker. Speak English or get out.

[Anonymous No.19035399]

>>19035380
>We have older writings
Ok, so how does this show that these writings are the source for genesis?
>supported by the textual evidence
Why should we care about this when it doesn't account for oral tradition and destroyed texts?

[Anonymous No.19035409]

>>19035390

[Anonymous No.19035420]

>>19035374
You are not an all-knowing God, none of us are. To have the audacity to say you know anything about the Creator is to act as though you know something about the greatest thing there is, be honest with your vanity and call yourself god or be humble and speak from where you belong, with the rest of us.

[Anonymous No.19035424]

>>19035399
>Ok, so how does this show that these writings are the source for genesis?
It doesn't prove it, but it provides a reason to think that Genesis may have borrowed from them.
>Why should we care about this when it doesn't account for oral tradition and destroyed texts?
Because it's all we have to go on. We have no direct access to oral tradition from thousands of years ago, so the best we can do is try to trace its development through surviving writings.

[Anonymous No.19035456]

>>19033435
>welcome to the ignorant faggots thread , where none of the fags around opened a book just regurgitate what they heard or read around and make edgy coments .
Go ask a priest if you got any in your country or read some books.
There are many books that could answer your questions better than this thread.
There are a few branches of Christianity with many books to answer your worries or questions. Go look some from Greece.

[Anonymous No.19035868]

>>19033542
Therefore he is neither all-good or all-knowing

[Anonymous No.19035923]

>make the world and everything in it
>run some trials with your lab rats to see which ones are willing follow the experiment
>the good rats can leave the maze and get the cheese of christ
Abusive if true.

[Anonymous No.19036134]

>>19033452
Ooh frittata!

[Anonymous No.19036140]

>>19033435
>Why does God do -thing-
To glorify himself. He doesn't owe you shit, least of all an explanation.

[Anonymous No.19036164]

>>19036140
he is a homo nigger who needs to dilate

[Anonymous No.19036174]

>>19033435
Because the entire story was made up by a bunch of 0 AD idiots

[Anonymous No.19036335]

How does one reconcile religion with human susceptibility to psychological warfare, the unknown extent to which man can grasp such transcendent concepts as divinity, etc. It seems most would, suspecting this, gravitate towards a state of agnostic suspension

[Anonymous No.19036438]

>>19035097
I don't get it. If you have to interpret the bible wouldn't you run into the same problem as moral relativists in the sense that you lose all claim to moral realism cause how do you verify which interpretation is valid.

[Anonymous No.19036471]

>>19035323
>They had to be capable of committing evil in order to have the capacity to choose good.
why

[Anonymous No.19036486]

>>19034064
>if you eat from the tree you die
>once you die you go to eden
>which you're already in

what the fuck god

[Anonymous No.19036491]

>>19035107
>>19035178
>>19035213
you are fucking retarded man

[Anonymous No.19036600]

>>19033545
yikes, I'll pray for you tonight

[Anonymous No.19036714]

>>19036438
You can be a moral realist and have a plurality of biblical interpretations. Wtf is this pseud take. I can ascribe moral good to some actions rather than others, while believing the bible has multitudinous valid interpretations

[Anonymous No.19036786]

>>19036438
all the "valid" interpretations will necessarily fall within a shared essential framework. None of these differing interpretations would validate lust over veiny satanic cocks, for example

[Anonymous No.19036915]

>>19036714
But your moral realism rests upon the morality that is expounded in your book and your book has a plurality of interpretations.

[Anonymous No.19036939]

>>19036786
Unless we untroduce Biblical criticism and ideas of forgeries and plagiarism

[Anonymous No.19036970]

>>19036335
what is the response to this???

[Anonymous No.19036978]

>>19036970
Try asking again in English

[Anonymous No.19036989]

>>19036915
This isn’t a rebuttal. It’s like saying socialism isn’t morally superior to capitalism because there are a plurality of types of socialism, or interpretations of socialist doctrine. Utter pseud, you do realise moral realism isn’t moral objectivism?

[Anonymous No.19037025]

>>19036978
try suck starting a 12 gauge

[Anonymous No.19037026]

>>19036140
Why do you then say "to glorify Himself?" That sounds like you are putting words in His mouth whereas I thought He needed no explanation. Perhaps He does things for no reason! An entirely arbitrary God, which would make sense, but which would eradicate omnibenevolence (as if that word had any human meaning to begin with).

>>19035336
And yet God set things up so as to ensure Adam would eat before he was ready. Either He was helpless to stop it or He chose the lesser of the two goods.

>>19035324
Direct revelation of the Holy Spirit- how do you know it is from the "Holy Spirit?" Perhaps it is from a demon, or a trickster spirit. The issue with direct revelation is the difficulty or even impossibility of verification, unless you have something new to tell me.

>>19035323
God does not just make man able to choose good and evil, but also makes their inclination to choose good and evil, or their gullibility. Man can have the ability to choose evil while still being wise or obedient enough never to choose evil; God did not choose such a course, it seems.

>>19035241
Where is the evidence that all early peoples were monotheistic a la Judaeo-Christianity?

>>19035180
How do you know that they knew it was wrong? And is it only bad conscience that makes an act evil, or the way it is received by the offended party (e.g., forgiven or punished), or merely the act itself?

>>19035172
So he ate the apple thinking that he was doing a good act? How would you know not to do something if there is no idea of wrong?

[Anonymous No.19037029]

>>19034184
christian bugman sighted

[Anonymous No.19037030]

>>19037026
Hello Sam Harris

[Anonymous No.19037099]

>>19036714
No assumption of God’s will is valid.
>But I read some books
Man can be wise in a few places, but man can be a fool anywhere. And in the face of God we are nothing.
>But I am an authority
Not on the word of God, but you act as though you were anyways.
>But I had an experience
Should I believe you were the chosen worm, or just another man who’s mind became his idol?

[Anonymous No.19037171]

>>19034124
>Durr, this entity who created a universe is no as smart as meeeee.
Go create your own universe if you don't like it. I'll wait, cuck.

[Anonymous No.19037301]

>>19034571
>There is no abstract moral law detached from the personal God.
Yes, and morality becomes meaningless and arbitrary when the two moralities contradict each other. It's moral nihilism- any action can be justified, no matter how virtuous it seems to us (according to the so-called "the law writ upon our own hearts") any action can be condemned. To eat or laugh can be viewed as sinful or shameful, products of fallenness. To possess genitals can be seen as evil (as seen in the Valesians and Skoptsky), or to marry can be viewed as a temptation due to the power of women over man- a shortcut to monastic homosexuality, in truth.

>God knowing it outside of time does not create Adams own experience of chosing, which is a mode of being of his own will
He predetermined that Adam would choose what He chosen, being the author of Adam's fate and character. It's as simple as this- He exists outside of time, knowing that His temporal creation will do exactly what He wills it to do within its temporality. Of course it's a "mode of being of his own will," but "his own will" is really just a God-Adam chimera.

>You're trying to blame God for the sins Satan and Adam committed without being forced and having the ability not to commit them.
Try "set up" instead of "forced." They did not need the ability to commit them, either; He is not forcing them to sin, but rather irresponsibly setting up His creation so that Adam's disobedience becomes inevitable.

>So? The vulnerable being was not predetermined to fall.
It was, because God exists outside of time and has created and thought everything out from its birth to its death. Nothing happens outside of His will or His knowledge, so it stands that everything that happens in creation was destined to happen by Him (because He created it while having perfect foreknowledge).

>He could, yet He in his infinite goodness did not. He did not want humans to be automatons. It is not human nature as created and envisioned in God's divine plan for creation.
Once again, why would God be morally evil for making us "automatons?" How can you judge God?

>It is not human nature as created and envisioned in God's divine plan for creation.
Yes, we can choose to do evil or good but we are not the authors of our destiny. I would rather all people be predestined to know and be with God, but it seems we like our classic fire and brimstone.

>He made Adam's will strong, but Adam's subjective experience of a perceived good outside of God weakened and corrupted his will.
Evidently He did not create it strong enough to resist the temptations of the devil. He also did not wall in the garden of Eden so that the devil could not enter and tempt Adam. In addition, He made Adam gullible and made for him an even more easily corruptible companion- Eve. We do not know how much Adam knew, or how much he knew, or how culpable he was for his act (as if anyone existed to record Adam's actions, or as if we have any evidence of any of this).

[Anonymous No.19037427]

>>19034184
This
God is the Logos, and he is the good in itself among other virtues, the highest idea of good - that's what Adam and Eve knew
The tree of good and evil's function is not to "introduce" these concepts to Adam and Eve, but to give them the means, or belief that they themselves could arbitrarily determine what is good and what is evil, when in reality God would by default represent a non-relativistic paragon of Good, which is infallible compared to our judgement.
That's why they get embarrassed about being naked, they decide that it's "not good", just like how they decided it was "good" to eat from the tree when it deviated from the Logos Good which forbade eating from it. The fall is mankind's first step in distancing itself from the good in itself and towards their own imperfect, unstable perceptions of good and evil

[Anonymous No.19037457]

>>19033435
The whole point is to create a circumstance, or rather maybe the belief in the circumstance that man made the choice to undertake the burden of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.19037799]

>>19033435
cuz it was funny

[Anonymous No.19037825]

>>19033435
Because God is a prankster, he just did all to laugh at us

[Anonymous No.19038205]

>>19037427
If God is the logos and Adam is made in the image of god how could Adam be tempted? And why was god incapable of creating someone who cant be?

[Anonymous No.19038207]

If Adam could never have transgressed against God's commandments, it seems he would never have been truly free, because he would not have had the capacity to transgress against God in paradise. The fruit of knowledge of good and evil (ego) was the mechanism whereby humanity would be able to use their free-will to eventually make their way to God, through the incarnation.

"And Adam and Eve—for that is the name of the woman— were naked, and were not ashamed; for there was in them an innocent and childlike mind, and it was not possible for them to conceive and understand anything of that which by wickedness through lusts and shameful desires is born in the soul. For they were at that time entire, preserving their own nature; since they had the breath of life which was breathed on their creation: and, while this breath remains in its place and power, it has no comprehension and understanding of things that are base. And therefore they were not ashamed, kissing and embracing each other in purity after the manner of children.

But, lest man should conceive thoughts too high, and be exalted and uplifted, as though he had no lord, because of the authority and freedom granted to him, and so should transgress against his maker God, overpassing his measure, and entertain selfish imaginings of pride in opposition to God; a law was given to him by God, in order that he might perceive that he had as lord the Lord of all. And He set him certain limitations, so that, if he should keep the commandment of God, he should ever remain such as he was, that is to say, immortal; but, if he should not keep it, he should become mortal and be dissolved to earth from whence his formation had been taken. Now the commandment was this: Of every tree that is in the Paradise thou shalt freely eat; but of that tree alone from which is the knowledge of good
and evil, of it thou shalt not eat; for in the day thou eatest, thou shalt surely die." (St. Irenaeus, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching)

[Anonymous No.19038271]

>>19038207
Yes, but he did not need to effect the capacity to transgress against God; for instance, if He was imbued with a stronger will, greater soberness, or more maturity, he could have resisted temptation and learned to "make his way towards God" in a better way.

Of course, the elephant in the room is that there's no evidence for this entire myth and all of our answers are not necessarily true, even if the myth is true. Anything could have happened, anything could be forged, anything could be the reality.

[Anonymous No.19038308]

>>19038271
>for instance, if He was imbued with a stronger will, greater soberness, or more maturity, he could have resisted temptation
Surely we can agree that Adam needed to have the capacity to transgress against God at the very least, and I would argue that for this potentiality (of transgression to enable the act of freely desiring re-communion) to be actualized, the capacity needed to be a real possibility (as in, there was actually a possibility that Adam could have freely chosen to disobey). The idea that chaos infiltrates any ordered system in a long enough span, from within or outside, is a recurring motif in the scriptures.
>and learned to "make his way towards God" in a better way.
Adam already walked with God, but the purpose of the whole redemptive arc enabled by the possibility of transgression was to make humanity worthy to eat of the tree of eternal life, which is the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Essentially, the eternally overflowing outpouring of God's divine love led to Him choosing to enact a plan, creation - the goal of which was to create being(s) which could freely choose to enter into the boundless joy of the communion of love in the Holy Trinity - and that for this good to be actualized, humanity needed to be given the real possibility of falling in the first place, and that indeed this was all a part of divine providence. It is for this reason that some patristic writers say things along the lines of "the purpose of the entire universe is the incarnation".

[Anonymous No.19038506]

>>19038205
>And why was god incapable of creating someone who cant be?
???

[Anonymous No.19038511]

>>19037301
>He wills it to do
God did not will Adam to sin. You're just being a satanist by trying to make excuses for people's sins and blaming God. It's laughable, honestly.

[Anonymous No.19038515]

>>19037301
>but "his own will" is really just a God-Adam chimera
Not in any but the most heretical degenerate gnostic sects.

>>19037301
>They did not need the ability to commit them
According to the nu-male in 2021?

[Anonymous No.19038521]

Watching christcucks reach supersonic levels of mental gymnastism to excuse Bible bullshit is one of the most comedically rewarding things out there. Thank you, and bless you, christcuckeroonis

[Anonymous No.19038531]

@19037301
>why would God be morally evil for making us "automatons?"
Nobody said this. But He did not do it so it was not His will for humans to be that way. You wanting God's creation to be in a way He did not intented is what's evil, not God's choice of creating us a certain way.
>I would rather
Why should we care?
>He also did not wall in the garden of Eden
Why should He do this?
>Evidently He did not create it strong enough
It was strong enough, Adam just did not use it well.

[Anonymous No.19038536]

>>19037301
>an even more easily corruptible companion- Eve
Sounds very sexist. What implies she was more gullible or imperfect? She was still human, but just had less responsibility as a woman.

[Anonymous No.19038543]

>>19038521
May the almighty God bless you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. May He keep you and guide you in your path, brother.

[Anonymous No.19038544]

>>19038271
>Anything could have happened, anything could be forged, anything could be the reality.

[Anonymous No.19038554]

why didnt god create adam with free will and enough goodness to resist temptation?
btfo

[Anonymous No.19038560]

>>19038554
>why didn't God create a being with free-will which had no ability to ever actually make a bad choice with said free-will
kinda missing the point

[Anonymous No.19038567]

>>19038554
He did though? Adam just choose not to use this goodness.

[Anonymous No.19038571]

>>19038560
So you're saying god cant do it?

[Anonymous No.19038575]

>>19038567
Why didnt he create the circumstances such that Adam would have used his innate goodness

[Anonymous No.19038576]

>>19033545

Seethe and dilate with your Demiurge, Gnosticuck.

[Anonymous No.19038578]

>>19038560
>here, Adam my boy, I give you the gift of making a choice that I shall use to condemn your faggot ass and all your progeny to eternal suffering in the mortal realm. No need to thank me my child :^)

[Anonymous No.19038592]

>>19038575
He did, Adam chose not to.

[Anonymous No.19038596]

>nooo I am not responsible for my sins! its all God! he forced me!

[Anonymous No.19038611]

>>19038596
This. We'll see how well this defense strategy holds up at court at the Last Judgment.

[Anonymous No.19038621]

>>19038611
>y-y-you'll get your comeuppance when you heckin die and go to hells!
so much love, tolerance, and turning the other cheek and totally not butthurt and petty resentment from being a fucking loser worshipper of desert kike

[Anonymous No.19038623]

>>19038578
>implying adam's progeny are condemned to eternal suffering
>implying adam and all of his righetous descendants are not in heaven after Christ broke open the gates of Hell
face it, God's plan is infinitely perfect, and most people are just too brainlet to understand how genius it actually is. its pretty sad when people less than 1000 years old try to chide the eternal creator of the universe on His divine plan, but we have free will to rebel against Him, so do what you will (as long as you accept the consequences). I pray you and the rest of those prideful repent and come to Christ =)

[Anonymous No.19038625]

>>19038560
The point should be that God did not need to do what He did, and yet He chose what was obviously a suboptimal choice (not to mention the inexplicable gaps of time- this generation will not pass until what I've said comes true, some of you will not taste until etcetera...).

The whole of Christianity is that "God is mysterious"- it's contained primarily in the Book of Job. This forfeits your right to call Him good, or purposeful, as those do not mean anything. There is no sign that His actions are good or purposeful according to our definitions thereof, so it is as "otherworldly" as it is nonsensical (the two words have a close correspondence).

I'm not an atheist, mind you.

>>19038511
According to your conception He would not desire for Adam to sin, but He still willed for Adam to eventually be created, partner with Eve, be tempted, and eventually fall. It is all willed and planned by Him.

I'm not trying to justify sins, I'm just showing how you are not the determiner or chooser of your own life; your free will is just a Rube Goldberg machine, of course God will not need to directly intervene when He's the one that set it all up. There's no need to justify sin, it will be punished as inevitably as one is predestined to sin.

The best excuse would be simply to not believe in your God, but rather to believe in a different God. It wouldn't be a difficult task, there's little that's logically necessary about your God, as if human logic can even point to an infinite, transcendent being (unless we presuppose that the being made it so, but it's unverifiable).

[Anonymous No.19038627]

>>19038621
>nooooo i just want to sin against the divine law without any justice!!!!!! i hate you, Dad!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous No.19038632]

>>19038623
Who are you to say what God will or will not do? Perhaps they are all in Hell. Perhaps all are in Hell, save for the Virgin Mary. If God is the foundation of all goodness, this would be good. If He lies, it will be holy.

>God's plan is infinitely perfect, and therefore it accords perfectly to the dogma proposed by my specific brand of Christianity
Literal "my uncle works at Nintendo"-tier argumentation. How would you know that God's infinite plan accords with yours if it is incomprehensibly large?

[Anonymous No.19038634]

>>19038627
>s-s-s-stop breaking rules of desert book or you go fiery place! You have to support Israel or G*d will borkin punish you!!!

[Anonymous No.19038635]

>>19038621
I don't want you to experience hell though. I would much rather worship Christ with you both in this life and in eternity.

[Anonymous No.19038636]

>>19038627
The bot always chooses the path of least resistance

[Anonymous No.19038638]

>>19038625
>did not need to do what He did
Why would He need to what you think is good with your fallen mind?

[Anonymous No.19038645]

>>19038632
>Perhaps all are in Hell
There are many more saints than the Holy Virgin Mary. We just propose that we need to join them, not blame God for our transgressions.

[Anonymous No.19038666]

>>19038638
Exactly what I said; as you cannot judge God, it leads to moral relativity, subjectivity, and absolute nihilism. Anything can be construed as an action of God or as a teaching handed down by God (bonus points if there's a "miracle" or supernatural occurrence founding it) and can thus not be judged because it is "from God." The only difference is the number of adherents.

And by "He did not need to do what He did," I am referring to the multiplicity of other things He could have chosen; He could have chosen to make Adam so resilient as to be impervious to temptation. That would not violate his free will; that would be like saying that Jesus Christ did not have free will because he was too impervious to temptation to sin.

And yet, God chose what would seem to us a very poor course of action. Therefore, one cannot call God good or purposeful and mean anything by that. Our "good" and God's "good" are two different things; it's like a Lovecraftian deity.

>>19038645
There is no way to verify that they are truly in Heaven; perhaps it is all a Satanic delusion to cause us to slack our efforts. Perhaps they, being imperfect, have not entered the kingdom of Heaven in truth. With God, all things are possible; but not all things are desired by God.

[Anonymous No.19038671]

>>19038625
>The point should be that God did not need to do what He did, and yet He chose what was obviously a suboptimal choice
It only appears to be a suboptimal choice when viewed from your limited and infinitesimally miniscule intellect, a mortal less than 100 years old, compared to God's divine intellect.

>this generation will not pass until what I've said comes true, some of you will not taste until
Prophesies referring to the fall of Jerusalem, and the resurrection, respectively, which both came true in the time period spoken of.

>The whole of Christianity is that "God is mysterious"- it's contained primarily in the Book of Job.
That is not anywhere near the whole of Christianity. We know some truths of God, and His nature, from revelation - for example, that "God is love" (1 John 4:8), or that He is a trinity.
>This forfeits your right to call Him good, or purposeful, as those do not mean anything.
You haven't provided any evidence for this statement, it's just your assertion. Scripture repeatedly affirms that God is good, and has a will.
>there is no sign that His actions are good or purposeful
That creation exists at all is the first and most obvious example which proves this statement wrong. He didn't have to create the universe, or give us the chance to exist, love, and enjoy His creation.

>>19038632
The tradition of the ancient church, guided by the Holy Spirit, came to this knowledge.
>How would you know that God's infinite plan accords with yours if it is incomprehensibly large?
That a conscious being of pure actuality created the universe necessitates that this is the best of all possible worlds. Further, revelation explains all of this, which is stamped with the seal of epistemological approval based upon the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, which confirms His teachings.

>>19038634
I don't support Israel. But you know the rules as much as I do. Play stupid games, and win stupid prizes. I hope your infatuation with rebellion wears off before your life is snuffed out like a thief in the night, the hour of which you will not know. It could even be tonight, as you sleep. I pray you repent, so we can rejoice forever in eternity, but alas, it is your choice in the end. I respect your decision thus far, and hope you make the right choice.

[Anonymous No.19038683]

>>19038666
>moral relativity
God is objective, we follow God, not our own understanding of morality.
>>19038666
>nihilism
>the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless.
????

[Anonymous No.19038686]

>>19038671
>It only appears to be a suboptimal choice when viewed from your limited and infinitesimally miniscule intellect, a mortal less than 100 years old, compared to God's divine intellect.
Lab rat theology.

[Anonymous No.19038687]

>>19038666
Get thee behind me Satan

[Anonymous No.19038689]

>>19038666
>There is no way to verify that they are truly in Heaven
There is though. I for sure know St. Mary is in Heaven.
You just do not want to see it. When you open your heart and earnestly look for truth, you will find it. No amount of mental gymnastics and shifting the blame onto God will change this.

[Anonymous No.19038691]

>>19038686
>if I were God, I would have done things differently
It's like you people almost entirely lack self-awareness. You can't see how silly this is?

[Anonymous No.19038697]

>>19038691
>>if I were God, I would have done things differently
This. It's literally role-playing a fantasy into existence to just not repent and get to keep the pride of being an intellectual human who can judge God.

[Anonymous No.19038698]

Christcucks are also atheists who have other hells to worry.

[Anonymous No.19038702]

>>19038666
>what would seem
>seem
Yes, from the fallen point of view of an atheist, whose very rationality is corrupt by the fall.

[Anonymous No.19038704]

>>19038691
You believe someone made you, set you up to fail, and will reward you if you follow the rules of the experiment, and you think I'm silly for not worshipping this person?

[Anonymous No.19038709]

>>19038697
What am I repenting for again? Please elaborate, ye of sickly disposition.

[Anonymous No.19038710]

>>19038666
>Our "good" and God's "good" are two different things
Only when you get so distorted and deluded by Satan so as to call "evil" as "good".

>>19038698
All other "hells" are just demons enticing you to join them. So Islam's heaven would also be a form of hell. I don't need any other "heaven" since it's just a form of hell.

[Anonymous No.19038717]

>>19038709
Of pride, of being able to judge Christ and reject Him, not believing in His words.
If you engage in this, you can only have a very limited access to truth because you willingly sever communion with Him who is Truth.

[Anonymous No.19038726]

>>19038710
>All other "hells" are just demons enticing you to join them.
CHRISTKEK COPE
CHRISTKEK COPE
CHRISTKEK COPE

Worry about the fire pits of hells ye ignorant cunt.

[Anonymous No.19038728]

>>19038698
Apostolic Christianity is the set of beliefs which provide the greatest possible performance across all possible sets of live options regarding the afterlife (eg. not including fake hypothetical religions which have no solid epistemological basis).

>>19038704
>set you up to fail
I have all the tools needed for success, such that even God Himself became incarnate to show me how to save myself.
>will reward you if you follow the rules of the experiment
Are you rewarding your child with life when you tell him to not drink bleach? Our sins are what prevent us from receiving what is meant to be the default gift provided to every soul which exists, and the divine law is what helps us stay in the proper state to be successful in this.
>you think I'm silly for not worshipping this person?
Well, I don't believe your position is rational (from what you have said so far, you clearly haven't researched well enough into what the other side actually says regarding this issue). Thus, I don't think you are silly, just that you are subconsciously choosing to make an irrational choice to hold onto your current state of being.

>>19038709
All of your sins.

[Anοnymous No.19038731]

>>19033435
In all cases of man's failure in Genesis and even Exodus, man was to blame.
God made the world good and gave man the tools to do good or bad; most did bad.
The only case that's a bit harder to crack is that of the Egyptian Pharaoh whose heart was hardened

[Anonymous No.19038734]

>>19038728
>which have no solid epistemological basis).
Who created God?

[Anonymous No.19038735]

>>19038726
>Worry about the fire pits of hells
I do worry about them. This is why I place my trust and hopes solely in Christ, because He will never dissapoint.
"Put not your trust in princes: In the children of men, in whom there is no salvation."

[Anonymous No.19038740]

>>19038734
God's nature is existence (actuality) per se. To ask what made "to be" exist implies that something which was not could give rise to that which is. As was said by the ancient Greeks, "nothing can come from nothing". Thus, God simply always existed in eternity, because to exist is His very nature. It's like asking what time it was before the Big Bang - before time was, asking what time it was is meaningless and absurd.

[Anonymous No.19038741]

>>19038734
God is not a creation.

>>19038728
>I have all the tools needed for success
This. With Christ's incarnation, we have absolutely everything to become what Christ was in His humanity before the resurrection.

[Anonymous No.19038746]

>>19038735
>I do worry about them.
Well you should because christcuck "hell" is just demons enticing you to join their cult.

[Anonymous No.19038751]

>>19038731
>a bit harder to crack
Why? He always choose defiance even after seeing God's actions clearly rebuking him. He has only himself to blame for it.

[Anonymous No.19038756]

>>19038671
Other assertions aside, I told you that the assertion "God is good" or "God is love" is meaningless if His goodness and love is completely detached from our conceptions thereof (when viewed from your limited and infinitesimally miniscule intellect, a mortal less than 100 years old, compared to God's divine intellect), thereby forfeiting your right to call God good or love and have that mean anything, scrawlings in a book be damned.

>He didn't have to create the universe, or give us the chance to exist, love, and enjoy His creation.
In response to this I will point you to (what I presume is) your previous response:
>>19038638

He did not need to do anything, and it is not necessary that He created the universe out of "love, goodness, or purpose." Can you tell me what relation God's goodness has to the creation of the universe if He is incomprehensible and a divine intellect?

>The tradition of the ancient church, guided by the Holy Spirit, came to this knowledge.
Prove that it was guided by a "Holy Spirit." Not through claims, but through something verifiable; anyone can lay claim to succession, but that means nothing if there are no ways to discern the true successors from the false or lapsed.

>That a conscious being of pure actuality created the universe necessitates that this is the best of all possible worlds
Not so.

>historicity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ
Where's the evidence for his resurrection?

>>19038683
It is called objective, but that is meaningless because it transgresses all of our moral intuitions. Our understanding of morality tells us not to sacrifice our children (even Abraham believed God would raise Isaac upon being sacrificed), and yet God demanded this, and saw that it was good. He did not follow through with the sacrifice, but He commanded an evil act and tempted His creation; the positive consequences or the Kierkegaardian 4D chess God was playing does not justify the act of temptation.

It is nihilism because it destroys the meaningfulness and organicness of all moral ideas; everything God does is moral.

>>19038689
How do you know she is in Heaven, or that she is real?

>>19038702
Aside from merely stating it, and not proving it (proving that my ration is fallen and imperfect compared to yours), you keep stumbling against the "seem" and ignoring the point I was making about moral nihilism.

We call God "objectively moral," but He does whatever He wills, and that is called good. The problem is that the "God is mysterious and I trust in something that goes against my intuitions" approach leads to nihilism- it leads to an unknown God about whom we make unfounded and unverifiable knowledge claims. Literal Hellraiser morality

[Anonymous No.19038757]

>>19038746
There is no solid epistemological basis for this statement, but a very solid basis for the Christian position (the historicity of the resurrection of Christ). Because there is no good reason to believe in your position, it is logical to reject it in lieu of any arguments beside mere postulation.

[Anonymous No.19038761]

>>19038740
>God's nature is existence (actuality) per se.
Who is created the existence?

>>19038741
>God is not a creation.
Then what is god?

[Anonymous No.19038765]

>>19038756
>it leads to an unknown God
No. You can participate in God's knowledge, it requires repentance though.

[Anonymous No.19038768]

>>19038757
>There is no solid epistemological basis for this statement
Ummm where I can see Christian heaven and hell?

[Anonymous No.19038776]

All of you theologians and philosophers talk as though you know who God is and what God wants. Now just because man can call himself “god”, as many have done, and as you people do, that doesn’t mean God stopped existing, and one day you will surely meet what no one has spoken of. No art, no books, no words, no pictures and no vain creation of man that has ever existed tells us it’s story. But it is.

[Anonymous No.19038778]

>>19038756
>it transgresses all of our moral intuitions
Your moral intuitions are wrong because of the fall.
>proving that my ration is fallen and imperfect compared to yours
Get baptised, follow Christ for even for a little while and you will see it yourself. It can only be seen directly and experientially. It's not something I can convey onto you in words since I can't pass the Holy Spirit.

[Anonymous No.19038782]

>>19038761
God is not "what", God is who - Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Existence is not a creation.

[Anonymous No.19038786]

>>19038717
Highly circular. No truth demonstrated here except a shoddy attempt at moral blackmail.
>>19038728
>you haven't researched what the other side says
Why do christers think people aren't familiar enough with their theology to reject it? What kind of bullshit cope is that? You haven't joined a new mystery religion from the furthest Roman provinces in 50 AD, you're part of a faith with like a billion plus adherents in 2021. The Bible has God as the creator of humanity who then punishes them for breaking his rules. Are you going to tell me that is inaccurrate? Because if it is accurrate, we are God's lab rats, and he is toying with us for sport, and if a real person did that to you it would be considered abusive. It's lab rat theology.
>>19038731
why make people and then let them rebel against you and then punish them for doing so? it is starting to sound like god is a man-made behavior modifying technique, and indeed, the sort of god depicted here is always associated with centralized states. And this is actually one of the more interesting points of the Bible, the Hebrews lose their state but keep their God instead of just becoming worshippers of the next sky lawyer

[Anonymous No.19038789]

>>19038786
>Highly circular.
God is circular, there is no other Truth outside Him.

[Anonymous No.19038792]

>>19038710
>All other "hells" are just demons enticing you to join them
Prove it

>Only when you get so distorted and deluded by Satan so as to call "evil" as "good".
Already begging the question. Christianity's good is just what God mandates; if that means rape, or theft, or torture, or ethnic replacement, then it is good because God has ordered it. A close parallel would be the Israelites.

>>19038728
>I have all the tools needed for success, such that even God Himself became incarnate to show me how to save myself.
If you are given a toothpick or a pickaxe to dig yourself out of prison, you would say the same thing. You can be given the means, but if the means is so pathetically inutile or impossibly difficult to apply, it's more of a malignant afterthought on God's part.

>God Himself became incarnate to show me how to save myself
The same God about whose life we only know the littlest fraction? Only a slim sliver of what He lived, said, and did is recorded in the good book; imagine how many things we consider sinful would be virtuous, how many virtues would become sinful, if we had access to His entire life? But I suppose this imperfection and lack of foresight on God's part is actually a part of His plan? For what can this "apologetic" not also be applied?

>Our sins are what prevent us from receiving what is meant to be the default gift provided to every soul which exists
We were created susceptible to sin and stiff-necked. This is not the condition we chose, for I did not choose to be born to a fallen woman, but rather a condition foisted upon us, beyond our free will.

>>19038735
Whoever you wholly put your trust in will not disappoint you; it especially helps if it is a completely separate and diaphanous entity that, if ever causes you harm, you can explain away as a "Satanic vision" or your own sinful fault. You can reconcile reality with your "good God," but there is nothing guaranteeing that it is true; it is just your preferred belief.

Nice catechism, anons; you make convenient explanations, but poor arguments.

[Anonymous No.19038793]

>>19038740
>borrowing from homosexual pagans and godless atomists to defend the Christian God against criticism of causation

[Anonymous No.19038794]

>>19038786
>The Bible has God as the creator of humanity who then punishes them for breaking his rules
Yes.
>Because if it is accurrate, he is toying with us for sport
Doesn't follow. Broken logic.

[Anonymous No.19038796]

>>19038757
>the historicity of the resurrection of Christ
Which, by definition, is and was only believed by only Christians....

[Anonymous No.19038800]

>>19038782
Who created existence? Why God is trinity? Who created Trinity? If everything has a cause and effect then who caused God?

[Anonymous No.19038802]

>>19038792
>Whoever you wholly put your trust in will not disappoint you
If I put all of my trust in you, you will surely disappoint by not raising me from the dead on the Last Day.

>but poor arguments
You cannot really "argue" with non-believers, the best course of actions is to explain truth to them and how they're wrong in the hopes that they might want to experience truth themselves.

[Anonymous No.19038805]

>>19038800
Absurd question, it's not a creation.
Because the Father begets the Son and breathes the Holy Spirit. It is who the Father is.
It's not a creation.
>If everything has a cause and effect
False premise. All creation has a cause (by definition), but not 'everything'.

[Anonymous No.19038807]

>>19038789
>just believe me bro
Nope.
>>19038794
>broken logic
No, what's broken is being made and then given a "choice" by the all-powerful all-knowing thing that made you to either worship him or not, and if you pick the latter you get thrown out for failing the experiment. It's closer to the plot of the Saw movies than it is to logic.

[Anonymous No.19038811]

>>19038805
Why he is? What was before is?
>but not 'everything'.
Then this universe came from nothing.

[Anonymous No.19038812]

>>19038807
>that made you to either worship him or not,
False. God made you only to worship Him, He did not give you a choice. Your choice is just a rebellion which He allows.

[Anonymous No.19038816]

>>19038765
I hate sounding like a broken record but that's just begging the question. There's not even a way to verify that your knowledge is "God's knowledge," you can just "feel" that it is.

>>19038776
God's ways are mysterious only insofar as they can evade the Problem of Evil. Beyond that, they are wholly intelligible; of course, there is no way to prove that the teaching is truly from an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent entity (how can one experience the infinite, or communicate it, or prove that one has experienced it?). There are only claims and presumptions.

>>19038778
>Your moral intuitions are wrong because of the fall.
That assumes that a fall even took place; of course, we are given the law writ upon our own heart, so our moral intuitions are not entirely fallen.

But then, by what logic can we call Satan evil, if our moral intuitions are fallen? Or how can I judge God as being good?

>Get baptised, follow Christ for even for a little while and you will see it yourself. It can only be seen directly and experientially. It's not something I can convey onto you in words since I can't pass the Holy Spirit.
I am a baptised Orthodox Christian. Don't postpone the truth on to something else next ("have you received the Eucharist lately? Have you stepped inside a church lately?). You make claims that coquettishly play at being verifiable but which have not been supported. You're basically proposing that I undergo an entirely emotional experience; there is no sober-minded, objective element to this "experience of the Holy Spirit" based on what you have said, leading to utter delusion and nihilism.

[Anonymous No.19038817]

>>19038761
>Who is created the existence?
You seem not to have read (or comprehended) my response, so I will allow you the opportunity to do so again. Please actually consider what I am saying.
>To ask what made "to be" exist implies that something which was not could give rise to that which is. As was said by the ancient Greeks, "nothing can come from nothing". Thus, God simply always existed in eternity, because to exist is His very nature. It's like asking what time it was before the Big Bang - before time was, asking what time it was is meaningless and absurd.

>>19038756
>"God is love" is meaningless if His goodness and love is completely detached from our conceptions thereof
We know it is not completely detached from our conceptions thereof, because the Holy Spirit inspired authors of scripture used the human-intelligible word "agape" to describe God's nature, which carries a very real and intelligible set of connotations to the human mind.

>In response to this I will point you to (what I presume is) your previous response:
That is not my post.

>Can you tell me what relation God's goodness has to the creation of the universe
Simple: existence is good. I like being alive. I enjoy eating delicious food, being with my loved ones, and enjoying the majesty of a sunrise, or the endless expanse of stars at night. Because existence is good - and is necessarily contingent and not self-existent by nature (as proven by the Big Bang), the fact that this good creation exists, despite it not having to exist, is the connections between God's goodness, and the creation of the universe. He didn't have to make this extremely good thing, but did so freely, because of how good He is.

>Prove that it was guided by a "Holy Spirit." Not through claims, but through something verifiable;
1. Jesus Christ claimed to be God
2. Jesus Christ prophesied His own resurrection
3. Jesus Christ resurrected from the dead, fulfilling His prophesy
4. This brings the probability that Jesus is who He said He is up to a very high level of near-certainty (unless you can disprove the resurrection arguments)
5. Thus, He is God
6. Thus, His statements are true
7. Thus, when He says "I will send you the Holy Spirit, who will guide you into all truth", this is true
8. Thus, the Holy Spirit guided the apostles into all truth
9. Thus, the Holy Spirit guided the ancient church
Obviously, this argument hinges upon the argument for the historicity of the resurrection.

>Not so.
You are familiar with Leibniz' argument?

>Where's the evidence for his resurrection?
The willingness of the apostles to be tortured and killed for the sake of testifying that Jesus Christ rose physically and bodily from the dead proves that they believed Jesus had appeared to them in a physical body after resurrecting. The explanations for why this is the case are many, and I believe the most rational explanation is that He rose.

>>19038786
>Are you going to tell me that is inaccurrate?
Yes.

[Anonymous No.19038820]

>>19038811
There was no 'before', because time is a creation.
The universe is a creation from nothing. God is not the universe.

[Anonymous No.19038828]

>>19038820
Lol christers always admit they are nihilists when pressed. The world is nothing. The world came from nothing. Only the imaginary being is something.

[Anonymous No.19038831]

>>19038802
>If I put all of my trust in you, you will surely disappoint by not raising me from the dead on the Last Day.
Thank you for ignoring my further caveat

>You cannot really "argue" with non-believers, the best course of actions is to explain truth to them and how they're wrong in the hopes that they might want to experience truth themselves.
Presumptuous little one, that you call your limited understanding of Christian dogma the truth. Or that millenia of human philosophers think they have grasped, let alone scratched the truth! You are not explaining The Truth to anyone, only a certain sect's interpretation of the truth, and your reading of that, to boot.

>>19038812
How do you know these things? Has God revealed these to you?

[Anonymous No.19038835]

>>19038812
>a rebellion which He allows.
Yes because your religion views humanity as his lab rats

[Anonymous No.19038843]

>>19038817
Why he is? Why does he always existed? How can you say he always existed?

>>19038820
Then he isn't all powerful

[Anonymous No.19038846]

>>19038796
By definition, everybody who ever accepted the resurrection of Christ was not a Christian before doing so.

>>19038792
>if the means is so pathetically inutile or impossibly difficult to apply,
It's actually very easy.

>Only a slim sliver of what He lived, said, and did is recorded in the good book; imagine how many things we consider sinful would be virtuous, how many virtues would become sinful, if we had access to His entire life?
"Now there are also many other things that Jesus did. Were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written." (John 21:25). The goal of the gospels is to lead people to the church of Jesus Christ, and thus to salvation. It contains everything necessary for that end.

>We were created susceptible to sin
What this actually means is "we were created with free-will", but you are choosing to interpret it negatively.

>>19038793
Philosophy is philosophy, and an argument an argument.

[Anonymous No.19038854]

>>19038816
>That assumes that a fall even took place
It clearly did when you have cleaned your mind and heart to see it. Creation is not in a state which accords with the law imprinted upon our hearts as images of the Logos.
>by what logic can we call Satan evil
By Satan's actions being evil (not in accordance with God's will).
>Or how can I judge God
You can't. You can only see that He is good. It's not a process of judging Him based on some outside law, but by just witnessing His goodness as is.

>I am a baptised Orthodox Christian.
Then you have willingly severed yourself from truth, and you wonder why your intuitions don't accord with Christ. Seeing the truth as a fallen person requires grace, which is a gift you can reject.
>undergo an entirely emotional experience;
It's not an emotional experience, rather an intellectual/spiritual one. You need to see your sins and ask God for truth. It's a change of the intellect first and foremost.

[Anonymous No.19038855]

>>19038843
>Why he is?
The question of why an essence is what it is is absurd on its face. Why does a triangle have three sides? Because it is a triangle.
>Why does he always existed?
Because His essence is existence.
>How can you say he always existed?
It is necessitated by His being pure actuality per se.

[Anonymous No.19038859]

>>19038828
>The world is nothing.
It came from nothing, by creation, but it is not "nothing", since it has existence.

>>19038831
>your limited understanding of Christian dogma
Me having a limited understanding of truth does not negate my ability to recognize it as truth.
>Has God revealed these to you?
Yes, and not just to me and not because of anything that I did or accomplished.

[Anonymous No.19038868]

>>19038792
>whose life we only know the littlest fraction?
Yes, you as outsiders. But we as insiders know more.

[Anonymous No.19038869]

>>19038817
>We know it is not completely detached from our conceptions thereof, because the Holy Spirit inspired authors of scripture used the human-intelligible word "agape" to describe God's nature, which carries a very real and intelligible set of connotations to the human mind.
Then they were presumptuous to put a human word on the love of such an entity as God. They were presumptuous, too, to assume the "inspiration of the Holy Spirit" (a thing which cannot be verified).

>Because existence is good
Its occasional beauty is not a sign of its goodness; perhaps beauty is a bad thing. Hold your soijacks, however; I think this world is good, and all of its sufferings, massacres, and human nightmares are a good thing. But not for the conventional reasons.

>He didn't have to make this extremely good thing, but did so freely, because of how good He is.
Begging the question; Him having made it good is not necessarily a sign of His magnanimity. Furthermore, "extremely good" is obviously a subjective imagining of the world.

As you yourself said, the entire argument hinges on the historicity of the events described. Or that the "Holy Spirit guided the apostles and the Church," whatever that means and however trustworthy the history may be; historians can report both truths and falsehoods, knowing that by mixing the two they are making a good case for Christianity. But enough conspiracies.

>You are familiar with Leibniz' argument?
No, but humor me.

>The willingness of the apostles to be tortured and killed for the sake of testifying that Jesus Christ rose physically and bodily from the dead proves that they believed Jesus had appeared to them in a physical body after resurrecting. The explanations for why this is the case are many, and I believe the most rational explanation is that He rose.
I disagree that it is the most rational explanation, or that it is necessary that they even historically existed. They could simply be fanatics, or they could be steely revolutionaries who recognize the value of a martyr. Perhaps they did not value their life as much as their ministries and influence; it wouldn't be the first time I've seen Jews sacrificing themselves out of spite. It proved to be a good tactic, as you can see.

[Anonymous No.19038875]

>>19038792
>if we had access to His entire life
But we do have access to His entire Life in the Holy Sacraments, and I mean His Life, not a mere record of it.

[Anonymous No.19038882]

>>19038855
>The question of why an essence is what it is is absurd on its face.
Why it is absurd? Why there is essence in the first place?
>Because His essence is existence.
Why there is essence? Why essence is existence is one thing and not the other? Is essence entrapped by physical Laws?
>It is necessitated by His being pure actuality per se.
Who made that actuality possible? Why there is an actuality?

[Anonymous No.19038889]

>>19038846
>By definition, everybody who ever accepted the resurrection of Christ was not a Christian before doing so.
That doesn't save your "evidence" from being from a profoundly biased source which needs to believe it is true
>>19038859
How did it come from nothing? Did God come from nothing too? Do we have God and nothing just coexistent with one another? Is everything just nothing as its root cause? Or do we have God cause nothing and then cause something? Nihilism par excellence.

[Anonymous No.19038893]

>>19038816
>Don't postpone the truth on to something else next
Why not? It's impossible to use your intellect correctly without the sacraments. I will pray for you, anon.

[Anonymous No.19038900]

>>19038893
Ok so the Old Testament, i.e. most of the Bible, was written by people who could not use their intellect.

[Anonymous No.19038916]

>>19038846
>It's actually very easy.
For so narrow a path, in which no imperfect thing shall enter Heaven, I would warmly beg to differ. For someone so detached from human living, I can only recommend being more perceptive; it is not at all an easy thing, especially if you are exposed to TRUE Christianity (Desert Fathers, ascetics, saints who actually renounced the life and did not live a comfortable, tenable pagano-nationalisto-Christian mongrel).

>It contains everything necessary for that end.
That is an unfounded presumption; it is possible that there is important information withheld from us.

>What this actually means is "we were created with free-will", but you are choosing to interpret it negatively.
I collapsed free will and culpability; that's all free will really is. You don't have the freedom to choose your destiny, being a pre-destined creation.

>>19038854
>It clearly did when you have cleaned your mind and heart to see it.
That proves nothing, as "when you have cleaned your mind and heart" invariably just refers to a state where you see creation as fallen. There is nothing else attesting to its cleanliness, or proving that it is a state of cleanliness in the first place; hypotheses upon hypotheses.

>By Satan's actions being evil (not in accordance with God's will).
As you see, you have forfeited your right to call God good by any human metric; Good is simply His will, and not the beauty of creation and other arbitrary frills He gave to this world to tempt us to depart from Him and instead worship or desire His creation.

>You can't. You can only see that He is good. It's not a process of judging Him based on some outside law, but by just witnessing His goodness as is.
I could as easily say that you are passively witnessing His evil; no, stop this madness. To judge something as good or to judge something as evil require the same powers.

>Then you have willingly severed yourself from truth, and you wonder why your intuitions don't accord with Christ. Seeing the truth as a fallen person requires grace, which is a gift you can reject.
I know how I saw things when I "accepted His grace;" I have antibodies, my friend. I don't need to be inoculated with any more of the Eucharist.

>It's not an emotional experience, rather an intellectual/spiritual one. You need to see your sins and ask God for truth. It's a change of the intellect first and foremost.
The same thing; by emotional, I meant that it's a change attested to in your emotions. It's psychological, unless you can verify it differently. But of course, it's a fool's errand; in order to test it out, according to you, you need to become a Christian- no atheist will do this. I was an Orthodox; there is no difference from here to there. How's that for cognitive dissonance? Perhaps you will make another unverifiable reconciliation, as I was wont to do; you will select whichever answer preserves your idea of God. That emotional fulfillment is your truth.

[Anonymous No.19038920]

>>19038889
By a miraculous action of God.
The Father did not come from anything, the Son and Holy Spirit eternally come from the Father.
Nothing is not an existence, it did not exist and cannot exist.
The Father is the root cause.

>>19038900
The Holy Spirit did not stop existing in the Old Testament, nor did God's grace change natures. Now it is open to everyone who believes in Christ, then it was only localized to certain people.

[Anonymous No.19038926]

no matter how convincing the argument, I will always suspect that I am having a complex psyop played on me. Simultaneously, I will always suspect that my suspicion of the psyop being played on me is in fact a psyop I'm playing on myself. Therefore, I will always suspect myself, and will always remain within a state of agnostic suspension

[Anonymous No.19038929]

>>19038920
>By a miraculous action of God.
How do you know this? Have you seen this?

[Anonymous No.19038935]

>>19038868
No more poeticisms, abba; I was referring to historical facts and deeds. "Jesus wept." "Jesus drove out the moneylenders with a whip." These details, and more like them. Not the ephemeral "knowledge" you only point to.

>>19038859
>Yes, and not just to me and not because of anything that I did or accomplished.
Prove that He has revealed these things to you

>Me having a limited understanding of truth does not negate my ability to recognize it as truth.
It limits you and everyone's ability to express or comprehend it, and that is crippling when it comes to apologetics.

>>19038875
Yes, His Life, not His life. But I was referring to His life; the issue with arguing with you lot is that any time I refer to life or truth, you take it as Truth or Life. But the latter are what is under question, the former are what point to the truthfulness of the latter. I do not simply accept the truth of what I am told, I look for confirmation. I have been in your position, I am not a cradle atheist or bydlo; I have been where you have been, and I see that what you tell me of a truth non-Christians cannot know or comprehend is a farce. What even is the use of argumenting, if you believe we are unable to believe?

>>19038893
Prove it, you great calumniator of life. Everything despicable is contained within your books. At least have the good sense to prove something without pointing to another baseless hypothesis.

[Anonymous No.19038938]

>>19038205
You serious?
Adam and humanity as a whole were not created to be gods equals, they were never meant to be
They are like God only in image, ie physical appearance, and in the ability to give life like God did

[Anonymous No.19038941]

>>19038920
Yes I am aware Christians believe god is eternal etc., the point is you are claiming the world was made from nothing. Like begets like... you are technically a nihilist, with only the excuse of God having made the world from the nothing to keep you from owning that label.

[Anonymous No.19038950]

>>19038756
Based truly ethical master morality

[Anonymous No.19038956]

>>19038916
>invariably just refers to a state where you see creation as fallen
Correct, and this state perfectly describes all other reality as well. It's just a true reflection of reality because it is a participation in the knowledge of its creator.

>by any human metric
All human metric is secondary and strictly false whenever it's not in synergy with God.

>Good is simply His will
Good is not identical to God's will, there is a distinction. There is the eternal logos of Good embodied in Christ, through Whom all is created, but there is also the divine will, according to which everything is created.

>I could as easily say that you are passively witnessing His evil
Them you would be falling into absurdity, because evil has no existence is God, as it is defined precisely as a separation from Him. God is not separated from Himself.

>I know how I saw things when I "accepted His grace;"
The Eucharist is not some magic where you instantly gain divine knowledge upon partaking of it. If you have pride or other sins clouding your heart/intellect, it's only a condemnation.

> How's that for cognitive dissonance?
I know very well that people can fall away from God, or from formally belonging to His people. It seems you never understood what the Church teaches if you have this warped of an idea of God's will as it applies to goodness and His creation.

>That emotional fulfillment is your truth.
Emotional fulfillment is an effect of believing in Christ, which requires intellectual change first and foremost. Emotional circumstances in your life can be a catalyst for this change, but they are not required.

[Anonymous No.19038957]

>>19038941
>Like begets like
False. The world is not a creation from within God and does not share His divine nature.

[Anonymous No.19038959]

How does one prove the ability of one's own mind to correctly discern external reality and divinity, all while operating within and depending upon the mental faculties which one is calling into question? And yes, I am aware that my identification of this problem is perhaps indicative of some degree of ability to discern truth, but how far exactly should we infer from this realization that this ability extends?

[Anonymous No.19038960]

>>19038869
>Then they were presumptuous to put a human word on the love of such an entity as God
That is not an argument, just conjecture.
>They were presumptuous, too, to assume the "inspiration of the Holy Spirit"
They were rational in believing the presence of the Holy Spirit, both because of the promise of Jesus Christ after He appeared to them resurrected (proving Himself to be God, to them), and their own phenomenological experience (eg. see Peter's experience in the book of Acts).

>Him having made it good is not necessarily a sign of His magnanimity
I think it logically follows - He didn't have to allow you and I to experience this beautiful world, and existence, which He created, but chose to freely.

>But enough conspiracies.
I've presented the arguments, and without going much deeper into them in a debate (preferably vocal), it seems useless to continue further on that end. At least you see that one can be rational and hold these beliefs. It's how the whole process started for me.

>No, but humor me.
You should do independent research on this before we continue on that line, and perhaps we will interact again, in the future.

>that it is necessary that they even historically existed
That is the opinion of most impartial historians. Vast consensus on eg. Peter and James being martyred.
>They could simply be fanatics,
They were, but that does not address why they believed the resurrected Jesus appeared to them.
>they could be steely revolutionaries who recognize the value of a martyr
That would mean they willingly chose to be tortured and killed for something they knew to be a lie, which is unprecedented in all of human history.
>Perhaps they did not value their life as much as their ministries and influence
See above.
>wouldn't be the first time I've seen Jews sacrificing themselves out of spite
For something they believe to be true, yes.

>>19038882
>Why it is absurd?
I outlined that here: >>19038740
>Why there is essence?
Because existence is a fact, and this necessitates a first mover of pure actuality. See the arguments from contingency, and motion.
>Why essence is existence is one thing and not the other?
It seems you may be ESL, but this phrasing does not make sense.
>Is essence entrapped by physical Laws?
Physical laws as you probably think of them, no. Logical laws, yes. For example, a triangle can not have 4 sides and also 7 sides.
>Who made that actuality possible?
It is actualized by nature. Again, see the argument from motion and contingency.
>Why there is an actuality?
The point is that there are facts in our physical universe which are self-evident that we are observing, such as change, and that arguments like motion and contingency prove that these realities point to a first mover/cause.

>>19038889
>That doesn't save your "evidence" from being from a profoundly biased source
What evidence would you prefer, some non-Christian who testifies to the resurrection? Obviously, all who were privy to these events converted.

[Anonymous No.19038961]

>>19038817
>Simple: existence is good. I like being alive. I enjoy eating delicious food, being with my loved ones, and enjoying the majesty of a sunrise, or the endless expanse of stars at night. Because existence is good - and is necessarily contingent and not self-existent by nature (as proven by the Big Bang), the fact that this good creation exists, despite it not having to exist, is the connections between God's goodness, and the creation of the universe. He didn't have to make this extremely good thing, but did so freely, because of how good He is.

I like how your writing is coherent and logical. May I ask if god gave will and set the course of time in action. Did he choose to create the future? Or do you subscribe to free will despite him having a multitude of wills to implant in a human being.

Im not the same person who replied earlier.

And are you speaking of Leibnitz’s monadology?

[Anonymous No.19038978]

>>19038916
>I know how I saw things when I "accepted His grace;"
Can you elaborate? What was your view of the world when you were Christian?

>>19038935
>Prove
Become Christian and you will see it.
>if you believe we are unable to believe?
I clearly do, otherwise there would be no conversion.
>I am not a cradle atheist or bydlo
That doesn't surprise me at all. Pride and having good worldly intelligence often leads us to despise the religion we were brought up with or had in our cultures. I know it by my own experience, Christianity was the very last place I looked to in my search for truth because I thought it was beneath me, a primitive religion with no "proofs". But then I finally gave up my distorted and disunited worldviews which have no truth and no internal consistency, tried following Christ and praying to Him and He converted me.
>I have been where you have been
I highly doubt it. I was an atheist too and I can see the same braindead skepticism in you which I had.

[Anonymous No.19038980]

>>19038957
Right.... so the world, having been made from nothing has nothing as its nature, and christers are still nihilists.

[Anonymous No.19038981]

???
>>19038959

[Anonymous No.19038984]

>>19033633

What is the explanation?

[Anonymous No.19038988]

>>19038960
>What evidence would you prefer, some non-Christian who testifies to the resurrection? Obviously, all who were privy to these events converted.
Oh how convenient, all the millennarian cult members agree on their beliefs so that's evidence the beliefs are correct.

[Anonymous No.19038991]

>>19038916
>For someone so detached from human living, I can only recommend being more perceptive; it is not at all an easy thing, especially if you are exposed to TRUE Christianity (Desert Fathers, ascetics, saints who actually renounced the life and did not live a comfortable, tenable pagano-nationalisto-Christian mongrel).
Jesus' yoke is easy, and His burden light. Don't be afraid.

>That is an unfounded presumption
The book Medical Miracles by Canadian Medical Hall of Fame and PhD haemotologist Jacalyn Duffin, whose secular testimony allowed the canonization of St. Margaret Dyouville, proves the intercession of saints, which provides solid evidence that following the tenets of the Catholic faith can lead one to heaven. Don't assume it's simply a presumption.

>You don't have the freedom to choose your destiny, being a pre-destined creation.
I literally do, though. That's what free-will means. I don't believe in double predestination, nor did the ancient Christian church.

>>19038961
>I like how your writing is coherent and logical
Thank you!
>May I ask if god gave will
If you mean free-will to humans, then yes. If not, please clarify.
>set the course of time in action
Yes, He was the efficient cause of the Big Bang, which the vast consensus of scientists agree was the beginning of spacetime.
>Did he choose to create the future?
I believe He knew every soul's free response to His offer of grace from eternity, but that our choosing this response is still entirely our free-will. To put it another way, every person in heaven was predestined there by God's grace, and every person in Hell is there of their own free choice to willingly separate themselves from this grace (as much as ontologically possible).
>Or do you subscribe to free will despite him having a multitude of wills to implant in a human being.
Although He can override a human's free-will (eg. Pharaoh and the hardening of heart), this is not the case in the vast majority of circumstances.
>And are you speaking of Leibnitz’s monadology?
I was speaking of Leibniz' argument for the necessity of this being the best of all possible worlds.

Sorry if the questions weren't answered well, It's really late here, and I'm almost in full brainlet mode.

[Anonymous No.19038994]

>>19038980
>nothing as its nature,
The world has its own nature as its nature. The nature of the world itself is a creation of God. He created all of it, with the natures for the things themselves as well.

>>19038959
>prove
It's a direct incommunicable experience which requires faith, a change of intellect and God's grace. It is a synergy of your created intellect and God's uncreated grace cleansing it. You can read about it, but that does not allow you to actually know that you are experiencing true knowledge. Internally you can know without doubt that Christ rose from the dead, but you can only do so much to convince someone with argumentation when their very faculty for accepting Christ is willingly closed off to Him.

[Anonymous No.19038996]

>>19038988
The evidence is that their willingness to be tortured and killed proves they believed Jesus had resurrected. Look into the arguments from secular scholars, they are absurd - you will come to your own conclusion. At the very least, you will get to pick a position, and we'll have a better talk next time.

[Anonymous No.19038998]

>>19038991
>Although He can override a human's free-will
>(eg. Pharaoh and the hardening of heart
which ancient church father believed this?

[Anonymous No.19039006]

>>19034124
relevation was a such mistake

[Anonymous No.19039007]

I cant believe these discussions have been held for over 2000 years now, is this the original superhero fanfic fight?

[Anonymous No.19039008]

>>19038994
>The world has its own nature as its nature.
You said it was made from nothing. I don't disagree that the world is the world, but that was not your opinion; yours was that God made it from nothing. And this is indeed internally logical for the christer, to deny the world and imagine god instead.

[Anonymous No.19039011]

>>19038689

Is this faculty not likewise fallen?

[Anonymous No.19039012]

>>19038998
It's directly in scripture (Exodus 9:12).

[Anonymous No.19039015]

>>19038916
>You don't have the freedom to choose your destiny
You can freely choose to end up in Hell by your rejection of God.

[Anonymous No.19039018]

>>19039015
why did god create beings that can reject him if he lacks nothing

[Anonymous No.19039019]

>>19039012
Why can we interpret scripture as we please?
Where does it say in that scripture that "hardened his heart" means "override his free-will" and not "foresaw his free-will rejecting God and hardened his will"?

[Anonymous No.19039021]

>>19038994
>It's a direct incommunicable experience which requires faith, a change of intellect and God's grace.
how is this distinguishable to an outsider from the effects of psychological warfare? It isn't, obviously, so I'm in a precarious position. I am unable to place complete faith in this, in a utility maximizing manner, with the simultaneous presence of a lingering suspicion in the back of my mind that I am merely deluding myself. It seems to be a catch-22, in that I cannot experience God without a complete faith which my otherwise sound suspicion would arrest, at least ever so slightly, for the aforementioned reasons.

[Anonymous No.19039024]

>>19038996
Ah no I have spoken to you before! You are the "epistemological weight" poster who thinks that certain volume of opinion makes it fact. Nevermind that this opinion comes from suicidal, I mean martyrdom-seeking, cultists, which these early christers were, being so resentful of Rome (there is a long history here of contempt for gentile rulers whether Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, Macedonian, Greek, or Roman) they would rather die than face the reality of being subjugated. And these spiteful people are our witnesses.

[Anonymous No.19039029]

>>19039008
It is from nothing in the sense that God did not use something pre-existent to make it.

[Anonymous No.19039040]

>>19039029
Ok so god has no cause, and the world was made from nothing (itself non-existent and thus a non-cause), so the world was made from nothing by a God who has no cause. So you're a nihilist if we take it to conclusion here.

[Anonymous No.19039042]

>>19039021
>in a utility maximizing manner
>with the simultaneous presence of a lingering suspicion in the back of my mind
You need to get rid of these conceptions and your suspicions first. There is change of intellect to be made if you want to experience Christ.
>I cannot experience God without a complete faith
A complete faith is a gift from God, it is by no means the initial stage of belief. The ability or openness to accept this faith is what is required, and a surrender of our own intellectual musings to Christ.

[Anonymous No.19039046]

>>19039042
There are non-Christian mystical experiences of non-discursive or irrational feeling/thought/etc. So why is the Christian one correct?

[Anonymous No.19039047]

>>19039040
The 'from nothing' formulation does not mean that there is a nature/subsistence called 'nothing' from within which the world is brought out of.
Rather, God created the world using no pre-existent thing as its basis. He created it with real existence, not using anything outside of Himself, but also not making the world a part of Himself.

[Anonymous No.19039051]

>>19039047
Why did God create a world if he lacks nothing?

[Anonymous No.19039056]

>>19039018
Because of His infinite goodness, and boundlessly overflowing love, He desires that creatures exist which be given the opportunity to join the boundless and infinite celebration of the love of the Holy Trinity (beatific vision).
>>19039019
>Where does it say in that scripture that "hardened his heart" means "override his free-will" and not "foresaw his free-will rejecting God and hardened his will"
If you want to make that semantic distinction, sure, that is the case (of course God foresaw his free-will). What matters to my point is that He hardened his will. This is in-house baseball, though, I don't believe my position is heterodox or heretical. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

>>19039024
>who thinks that certain volume of opinion makes it fact.
That's not my position.
>they would rather die than face the reality of being subjugated
Again, the messianic lie hypothesis - that the apostles were willing to be tortured and killed in the most horrific way for something they knew to be a complete fabrication and blatant lie, while also creating a new religion to lead people away from their God (as the Pharisees like Paul saw early Christianity). You're free to believe that they were willing to be tortured and killed for a complete lie, all for the sweet promise of eternal punishment in Sheol for leading the children of Israel astray to worship a mere human, but in my opinion, it's absolutely absurd.

[Anonymous No.19039057]

>>19039046
Because it is the only internally correct one, and the Christian experience has full knowledge, in that it explains all other experiences, but the other experiences fail to see the Christian experience as the Christian does. One can understand from a Christian point of view what the other people see, but nobody can see from their point of view what the Christian sees without becoming Christian.

[Anonymous No.19039060]

>>19039051
To share the Love He has with something not of His nature, humans.

[Anonymous No.19039062]

>>19039042
>You need to get rid of these conceptions and your suspicions first.
they insist on themselves, owing to the nature of intellect to recognize its inability to externally verify itself, and thus to take no firm positions save for the possibility of the presence of illusions, and to embark on a series of endless regressions of this nature

[Anonymous No.19039064]

>>19039047
>God created the world using no pre-existent thing as its basis. He created it with real existence, not using anything outside of Himself, but also not making the world a part of Himself.
I understand that you think he poofed the world into existence out of nothing, and in order to be separated from pagan gods had his theologians instruct you that he is not at all part of the thing he made. But the consequence of this thinking is that the world is nothing. Which is of course a central attitude of Christian soteriology and the escape to God. You move from a world that is nothing to a God that is "real." But the world is what is actually here. So why is it taught to be made from nothing by someone who isn't here, except to excuse priests and their allied rulers from answering further questions about the established communal order?

[Anonymous No.19039067]

>>19039056
If he's so loving why does he make the game such that his flawed subjects are condemned to an infinite amount of time suffering horrific pain for a few mishaps that happen within the average human lifespan?

[Anonymous No.19039071]

>>19039056
>it's absolutely absurd.
Yeah like all the other religious people who get killed for their gods, the Christian martyrs were absurd. Thank you for agreeing with me.

[Anonymous No.19039073]

>>19039056
>I don't believe my position is heterodox or heretical
You literally said that God can override people's choices. That He can make me a satan worshipper, for example.
Allowing me to worship demons when He foresees that I will never repent (and maybe even making me an example to others) is not the same as making me into a demon worshipper by overriding my free-will of not being a demon worshipper.

[Anonymous No.19039076]

>>19039057
>One can understand from a Christian point of view what the other people see
Oh right. "Those were just demons." What a charitable all-encompassing perspective on other faiths.

[Anonymous No.19039077]

>>19039060
So he lacked something for a while (until he created the world)?

[Anonymous No.19039078]

>>19039062
>they insist on themselves
These insistences would be results of the intellect's corruption, not an inherent property of the intellect by nature. This is why there needs to be a willfull effort to get rid of them.
>no firm positions save for the possibility of the presence of illusions
This would be a self-refuting view. If the only possibility is the presence of illusions, even this possibility would then be illusory.

[Anonymous No.19039081]

>>19039067
Characterizing unrepentant mortal sin as a "few mishaps" shows that you either are not aware of the venial/mortal sin distinction, or the severity of performing a mortal sin in general. I do suggest you look into invincible ignorance and mortal/venial sin, so that you have a better understanding of this issues.

>>19039071
The point is that they believed Jesus Christ appeared to them physically and bodily resurrected, and were willing to be tortured and killed for this belief. You believe that they chose to willingly be tortured and killed for this testimony, despite the fact that creating a new religion whose basis is the worship of a mere man (as opposed to God alone) would be a damnable sin in Judaism, which would mean they would not only be tortured and killed, but also spent eternity in Hell for leading the children of Israel astray. If you can't see how ridiculous this theory is, I feel bad for you. At least a rational third-party observer will hopefully see my point: the messianic lie theory is utterly absurd.

[Anonymous No.19039084]

>>19033435
Unironically because He wanted all His full glory to appear in the garden of Eden. He placed the beauty of nature, the shape of man, and the two trees: one of knowledge, one of life. When He says "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil" He truly means it.
The only differences there are between man and God are that God is eternal and we aren't (Adam and Eve did not eat from the tree of life) and that God sees through and above the firmament, while we are earth-bound, or have been until last century.
Still, we've got a long way to go to become as him, for we are stuck in the cave watching shadows pass by, while He not only contemplates the brightness of the sun, but also created it.

anyway bad bait, but I'll take it because I haven't seen anyone have an answer like this one. also everyone who's read the Bible knows that it NEVER specifies the fruit as an apple.

[Anonymous No.19039085]

>>19039076
>Oh right. "Those were just demons."
Yes.
>charitable
It is charitable in that we don't lie to them about what they're doing and what the consequences of these acts will be.

[Anonymous No.19039091]

Imagine subhumans telling this dad who had travelled hundreds of miles in the desert on his almost dead camel to find medicine support for his son but what he received is a horrible slow death of his kid in his own hands in the course of many days, "Just trust the plan bro".

And just to think that stories like have happened billions of times is fucking too much. How much cold one has to be to believe that this existence is the work of divine good

[Anonymous No.19039092]

>>19039077
No, He did not create the world out of a lack of something, but rather of an overabundance of love.

[Anonymous No.19039095]

>>19039073
Like I said, I'm fine with changing my wording to God having the ability to "harden [one's] will". It's mostly semantics, but I see why it could seem scandalous when misinterpreted. Thanks for pointing it out.

[Anonymous No.19039096]

>>19039092
And yet he lacked the world otherwise he wouldn't have created it

[Anonymous No.19039100]

>>19039096
>lacked the world
The world is not a property of God, nor internal to Him. How could he "lack" it?

[Anonymous No.19039104]

>>19039096
The world is not a part of God, so its absence prior to creation is not a privation in His being. If Christians believed in pantheism, then yes, your point would be valid.

[Anonymous No.19039111]

>>19039092

Would this not mean that he lacks continence?

[Anonymous No.19039115]

>>19039092
Why couldnt he keep his love inside?

[Anonymous No.19039118]

>>19039057
>Because it is the only internally correct one
prove it

[Anonymous No.19039119]

>>19039081
You're effectively asking me to side with ISIS you know. They seem pretty, uh, die-hard about the epistemological weight of Islam.

[Anonymous No.19039121]

>>19039092
Yeah mate this >>19039091 is his overabundance of his love.

[Anonymous No.19039125]

>>19039085
>agree with me or you go to hell
So deep and profound

[Anonymous No.19039129]

>>19039121
God did not create sin and its consequences of on the world.

[Anonymous No.19039132]

>>19039125
Not just hell but Eternal hell

[Anonymous No.19039134]

>>19039125
When you see hell as negative experience due to separating yourself from God, this naturally follows. Any disagreement with God will lead you into hell by the very nature of what disagreement with God is.

[Anonymous No.19039135]

>>19039129
>create people who "sin," i.e. break your laws in the world you created
Lab rat theology

[Anonymous No.19039141]

>>19039129
Then he isn't all powerful.

[Anonymous No.19039142]

>>19039134
Lab rat

[Anonymous No.19039150]

>>19039132
...until the Apocalypse, where the Devil is destroyed. It's not eternal Hell as opposed to eternal Heaven. Read the Bible

[Anonymous No.19039152]

Why didnt God kill the snake if his only purpose is to tempt and corrupt the inherently good Adam and Eve? Why did God create him in the first place?

[Anonymous No.19039164]

>>19039119
We know that people will choose to die for something they believe to be true all the time. The unprecented nature is when somebody chooses to be tortured and killed for something they -know to be a lie-, which is what you are claiming - nevermind the fact that the Judaism of the apostles made the act of creating a new religion which worships a mere man a damnable sin. So, your position is that a group of people chose to be brutally tortured and killed for a complete fabrication, while in the process also founding a false religion based upon the worship of a man, with the ultimate reward of an eternity being tortured in Hell. It's absolutely absurd, and hopefully somebody else will be able to see that you argument is completely irrational. I do have have hope you will soften your heart yet when you realize this, "christer"-anon.

[Anonymous No.19039166]

>>19039150
>nooo it's not forever it's just until the manichean war with the devil ends, which apparently God hasn't done yet
Are you sure that's Christianity?

[Anonymous No.19039172]

>>19039152
The fall led to humanity being worthy to partake in eternal life and theosis. Satan is a useful idiot whose edgy plots always get used by God for the greater good, such as when he possessed Judas to make him betray Jesus, only for Jesus' crucifixion to be the very thing which saved mankind.

[Anonymous No.19039181]

>>19039172
So you're saying Satan and even sin itself are integral to god's plan? Otherwise if everyone was sinless Jesus' sacrifice wouldn't have done a thing?

[Anonymous No.19039184]

>>19039164
No, I did not claim they knew to themselves they were lying but chose to die for something they did not believe. Your script is thus way off—I don't believe them, which doesn't make them liars, it makes them people I don't believe, like ISIS, who I also don't believe, but at the same time have no doubt that they believe in Islam. You are too stupid to make this distinction, which is fine, just don't expect to be convincing when you ask other people to accept your terms of epistemological weight.

[Anonymous No.19039187]

>>19039042
>You need to get rid of these conceptions and your suspicions first. There is change of intellect to be made if you want to experience Christ.
suspicion is entirely warranted in the face of such enormous claims. I am willing to experience the truth, but I am hesitant to ideologically fling myself upon such claims as to your specific narrative of the nature of divinity. It is entirely warranted to have reservations as to the degree to which man can accurately define the nature of the transcendent.

[Anonymous No.19039191]

>>19039184
So now that you've abandoned the messianic lie theory, why do you think that the apostles believed that Jesus physically and bodily rose from the dead?

[Anonymous No.19039193]

>>19039091
>abloobloo God should make it so that everyone has a three story mansion and a turkish sultan's harem
are you dense? creating some sort of hedonistic utopia was never point of christianity, just look at how jesus ends up ffs
god represents the highest form of good, tolerance, charity, etc. Coming as close to God and Jesus his son during one's life is the main idea of christianity (which is clearly built on Platonic idealism). In other words, the type of person that is so good, that he remains as such even when surrounded by evil. The type of person that regardless of how much suffering is in the world due to wicked people, or how much he suffers, he still loves the former and loves existence. The type of person who still forgives and loves humanity and creation even while being pelted by stones, insulted, and bearing the heaviest cross of all. That's what saints do, that's what Jesus did, and that's what bring people closer to God

[Anonymous No.19039199]

>>19039193
>>19039172
answer this >>19039181

[Anonymous No.19039216]

>>19039181
Based upon the fact that God obviously foreknew that the fall would occur when Adam sinned, and that Judas would betray Jesus, I think that it is true, yes. With regards to the latter portion, it seems to be more prudent to say that this divine providential plan for salvation of mankind leads to the greatest possible amount of souls reaching salvation, while also showing God's love for us in the greatest possible way (by becoming incarnate and giving His life for us). He used the power of death to defeat death, and thwarted Satan by using his sin defeat sin.

[Anonymous No.19039223]

>>19039216
So can sin have some kind of utility if it is used to save more souls?

[Anonymous No.19039225]

>>19038816
>here is no way to prove that the teaching is truly from an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent entity (how can one experience the infinite, or communicate it, or prove that one has experienced it?). There are only claims and presumptions.
It is commendable that you’ve admitted not a man on earth can speak for God, though I must insist, why do you still continue to partake in this vanity and idolatry?

[Anonymous No.19039226]

>>19039191
Because their cult leader got taken away from them? I don't really have a burden of proof here, I'm not claiming someone rose from the dead and that we should believe this because people died refusing to deny it. It is well established that people are willing to die for beliefs, ideas, ideals, etc., which are distinct from those of other people, the more distinct in fact the more the believer is willing to hang for them. No one is dying over coke vs pepsi. I cannot possibly believe in the idiosyncratic and realities of everyone who commits suicide. I need a better reason than "how come he died for x if x isn't true"? If that's the only criteria you have to convert to Islam since they are winning.

[Anonymous No.19039228]

>>19039216

Is this not Munchausen by proxy?

[Anonymous No.19039233]

>>19039216
>divine providential plan for salvation of mankind leads to the greatest possible amount of souls reaching salvation, while also showing God's love for us in the greatest possible way
Again, why should I believe in a God who hath decreed I am a lab rat being given stimuli to modify my behavior and if I reject the stimuli I will be punished? What's the point of this? What problem did this solve? Trust the plan? But don't you know what happens to lab rats?

[Anonymous No.19039240]

>>19039199
>So you're saying Satan and even sin itself are integral to god's plan?
no, this is just how you choose to frame it, whether Satan is integral and what do you mean by "god's plan" are all up in the air
personally I like how Goethe labels Satan as the "negating spirit". If God has to be the highest good, then action, the creation of the world and therefore life itself also have to be good. Good in the platonic sense does not allow for evil to be anything more than a lesser form of good (so "cowardice" doesn't exist, just "less bravery", because cowardice has no meaning outside of being a negation of bravery), thus satan's role is to tempt, and negate: whether that be the word of god or jesus, or whether life is really good a priori, and so on
it's clear that with God as the absolute apex of Good, then these lesser forms, including satan, would also have to exist. The point of christianity is to choose to try and be as close as the highest form of good even in the face of overwhelming evil, choosing to do so being a fundamental element here. What good are a bunch of devout monks living in the middle of nowhere, if they never expose themselves to the evils of the world to try and cure them? Christians should seek places filled with evil and sin the same way Jesus did to spread good, ie the word of god. Evil's role, then, is not as a "balancing agent" against Good, but as a test to one's goodness and faith. Because if all evils are just lesser forms of goods, then everyone can be redeemed, forgiven, and loved. And if your Good, your faith in god is powerful enough, so you too can redeem those who "strayed" from the absolute good, the word of god. That's what Jesus did by dying on the cross - the reward for that being eternal life in communion with God

[Anonymous No.19039241]

>>19039223
From God's perspective, I believe this is true (He can utilize the free response of people who reject His grace (aka sin) to bring about a greater good). From the human perspective, we should absolutely never, ever, try to sin as a means to save souls. We would end up being used by the devil and attempting to do things of our own power, instead of seeking theosis and to do the will of God (which is never to sin).
>>19039226
>Because their cult leader got taken away from them?
That Jesus was arrested and crucified does not explain why the apostles believed He appeared to them physically and bodily resurrected, to the point of being willing to be tortured and killed for this testimony. Care to try again, but this time actually answer the question? If not, just do some thinking, and respond when we next see each other in a thread.

>>19039233
It seems like you have a problem with authority in general. You are seeing the divine commands as proscriptive, when in reality, it is for our own well being to follow the divine law. For example, if your father tells you not to eat a Tide Pod, you may think him tyrannical, because you believe it looks so tasty - but in reality, he simply wants you to have a long-lasting and healthy life. The same is true for God, who wants us to have eternal life, and so gives us guidelines in the scriptures which lead us to happiness, peace, joy, and ultimately, an eternity in heaven.

[Anonymous No.19039253]

>>19039241
>it is for our own well being to follow the divine law

How is this not proscriptive?

[Anonymous No.19039259]

>>19039241
>Care to try again, but this time actually answer the question?
Care to explain why you don't believe in Islamic miracles? What are you so smug about?
>reality is a Tide Pod
Except my father didn't invent Tide Pods and then litter them all around me to see what I'd do. You fundamentally believe you are a lab rat, but that you're better than the other rats since you're following what (you hope) are the rules of the experiment. But the reward for being a good rat, is what exactly? The scientist will pluck you out of the maze and give you a big cheese wheel that never ends?

[Anonymous No.19039264]

>>19039240
Okay then let's frame it in another way. What's the purpose of Jesus' sacrifice in a world without sin?

[Anonymous No.19039278]

>>19039253
Because it is not that God arbitrarily forbids you from doing heroin, but rather than God wants you to be happy, healthy, and spiritually fit to dwell in heaven, and is giving you loving advice to ensure this.

>>19039259
>Care to explain why you don't believe in Islamic miracles?
I don't believe in Islam for many reasons: one is that Muhammad performed no miracles, even when prompted by the Jews and Christians he ministered to (even though the Old Testament makes it clear that a sign is required for one to be considered a prophet). There are many other reasons, which if you actually care about, I will share.
>Except my father didn't invent Tide Pods and then litter them all around me to see what I'd do.
Neither did God litter sin around you to see what you'd do - this is the result of human evil, not anything that God positively willed.
>You fundamentally believe you are a lab rat
Not at all, as I have repeatedly said. Your perspective is biased, probably from your own issues with authority (and I get the feeling its a problem with your father, but I'm not a psychologist, so I digress).
This is not an experiment, it's real life, you're all in whether you like it or not.
>What are you so smug about?
I hope I'm not coming off as smug, but I just find it crazy that through ~3 threads, you've always failed to grasp the nuance of the argument for the historicity of the resurrection, while repeatedly calling me "stupid", etc. I do hope that one day you understand, though.

[Anonymous No.19039279]

>>19039241
Alright so God can utilize the consequences of sin and we cant

[Anonymous No.19039285]

>>19039278
>but rather than God wants you to be happy, healthy, and spiritually fit to dwell in heaven, and is giving you loving advice to ensure this.

This is most arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.19039287]

>>19039279
God = infinite divine intelligence, therefore can utilize the free choices of sinners to bring about an even greater good, though He does not will that they sin
Humans = limited mortal intelligence, will be outsmarted by Satan, and are commanded to be perfect and holy, rather than sinners who attempt to make our will be done, rather than the Father's

[Anonymous No.19039291]

>>19039285
I hope you see my point, at least. If you are interested at all, I might suggest "The Sources of Christian Ethics" by Servais Pinckaers.

[Anonymous No.19039294]

>>19039264
>What's the purpose of Jesus' sacrifice in a world without sin?
firstly it depends on what you mean by "sin"
christian morality as I see it labels evil as a "lesser form of good" compared to the highest Good that is God. If we are to take the Christian idea of God, then it would seem that every world would necessarily have "lesser forms of goods", i.e. at least the potential for sin
in other words, since we are not created to be in the same "apex" as God in terms of morality among other things, then the existence of Jesus, God in the flesh would not be possible. The way I see it this question can only be a hypothetical presenting two conditions (Jesus, and therefore God's existence + the complete absence of any form of Good that isn't God's) which are compatible only insofar as the creation of the physical world never took place
if you're asking this question as a way of asking "what was the purpose of Jesus's sacrifice" then I already explained it. Since he "died for our sins" then sin is a necessary element.

[Anonymous No.19039298]

>>19039291

I don't, you've only succeeded in claiming God as the most proscriptive and arbitrary one.

[Anonymous No.19039316]

>>19039298
Put it this way - society, with its limited mortal intelligence, will tell you that it is okay to have promiscuous sex, because it will make you "happy", and content in the moment. God, having all of the variables accounted for, sees things like the correlation between sexual partners and divorce rates, the societal value of virginity, the perils of unwanted pregnancy and abortion, the spread of incurable STDs, and the negative spiritual consequences of habitually giving in to dopaminergic urges - and lovingly makes the commandment to not fornicate. It's not like He just arbitrarily decides that fornication is evil even though it feels good and has no downsides. He just wants us to be happy, and this comes about through being virtuous. I highly recommend looking into virtue ethics, and the book I recommended by Pinckaers, as it is a scholarly look at this topic in relation to Christian moral theology.

[Anonymous No.19039325]

>>19039316
>He just wants us to be happy

Yes, and this is most proscriptive and most arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.19039354]

>>19039187
> I am willing to experience the truth
If so, then you have to let go of suspicions and post-fall methods of thinking as something good. You will not be able to experience truth without this. Ultimately it's a choice between your own conceptions and Christ, you will have to choose one over the other.

[Anonymous No.19039363]

>>19039172
>The fall led to humanity being worthy to partake in eternal life and theosis.
True, but I think it has to be noted that the incarnation would still have happened without sin, still leading to theosis. It was always God's plan to have His Son incarnate as human and share the great joy with us.

[Anonymous No.19039371]

>>19039240
>if they never expose themselves to the evils of the world
The demons attack monks even more. They're fighting on the forefront of the battle. Monks and missionaries experience the most demonic activity since they are the ones actively trying to fight them the most.

[Anonymous No.19039499]

>God gives man free will
>man uses free will to do something bad
>God punishes them
This has never made sense to me. Ever. That's like telling a guy he can drive any car in the lot but then shanking him for picking a car you don't like.

[Anonymous No.19039519]

>>19039499
>>God gives man free will
'Free will' in your understanding (I can do good, but also bad) was not given by God, but rather the experience of this 'free will' was itself the fall.

[Anonymous No.19039583]

>>19039166
Have you ever heard of the Book of Revelations?