/christian/ - Christianity

Religious discussions and spirituality

SAVE THIS FILE: Anon.cafe Fallback File v1.0 (updated 2021-01-10)

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 5120

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

Board Rules
More

(used to delete files and postings)


Open file (28.92 KB 600x600 7ef.jpg)
Universalism fixes the problem of evil Anonymous 07/30/2021 (Fri) 15:18:03 No.1252
Evil and suffering does not matter if it only serves as a lesson for humanity, therefore it is not a problem at all as everyone will get saved and reconciled with God eventualy. The problem of hell is more important than the problem of evil, and there is no good explanation for why an omnipotent good God would allow anyone to be not saved as he is supposed to be loved and compassionate towards all. Free will argument does not work because the God knows of our fates even before he created humanity, therefore creating people just so that they will be suffering in hell for eternity makes him evil. There is no divine plan that can justify those horrendous means. If you aren't an universalist, you are basically worshipping an evil tyrant and making up excuses for him, when he is clearly the one who bears the responsibility. It is not possible to absolve an omnipotent being of responsibility. The existence of suffering can be justified, the existence of hell cannot.
>>1252 t. David Bentley Hart
>>1252 Just a side question: If you believe good and evil are real objective things, then how exactly do they transcend the creator of all things? If God is not good, then is good and evil not just subjective personal preferences? In which case why should I care if you personally dislike something that God does? This question would probably be better for a moral ontology thread but whatever
>>1259 You are correct, if God is not good then good and evil are just subjective personal preferences. But if God is good then: >God is good >God needs to have revealed at least partialy to humans what is good and evil by giving them a sense of justice and morals >As God is good he wouldn't do things that are unjust >Creating a being just to doom it to suffering forever is unjust >Therefore universalism is correct There is an internal contradiction under the assumption that God is good if God condemns people to hell. The contradiction means that one of the premises is wrong, either God isn't good, in which case we cannot judge gim morally besides individual judgement I would judge such a God as a tyrant personally or he does not condemn people to hell.
>>1263 >"Our Salvation is of God, our perdition of ourselves." Oecolampadius
>>1265 >Our Salvation is of God, our perdition of ourselves. Sorry but it still does not make logical sense for everyone to not be saved if God is good. Because God is omniscient, therefore he must know what choice we will take even before he has created us. Which means that he must have created us in a way that would lead us towards a certain path. Him making a mistake is literally impossible by definition. Therefore if he is truly good, omniscient and omnipotent, then he can't create a person just to throw them into hell. Perhaps the possibility is there, but he couldn't have planned it all in a way where he deliberately created people for the sake of eternal suffering. After all, there is nothing we can do against him in the end, simply because he is by definition, literally perfect. He could not have created the world without knowing that Adam and Eve will eat the fruit of knowledge even before creating it, it simply is logically impossible for an omniscient being to do so. Therefore the responsibility in the end must, at least partialy, lay on him. He makes the rules which we play by. The very act of creation of a being that he knows will take certain choices (because he has to with his omniscience) means that he decides our fates from the moment he made us. It is logically impossible for him to make us suffer for eternity and still be called a good God with this obvious injustice.
Open file (172.20 KB 1314x876 evangelion.jpg)
>>1266 People create their own hell in the absence of God, it's a miracle that there's any good or compassion in us at all. He doesn't need to throw us into hell at all.
>>1267 Then that means that he has created us just so that we create or personal hell knowingly. Once again, the fact he is omniscient makes it impossible for him to do so otherwise.
>>1269 >what is free will
>>1263 >I would judge such a God as a tyrant personally In other words, you'd personally dislike him but he wouldn't actually be evil because there would be no such thing as good or evil. Tyranny wouldn't be right or wrong, just something you personally dislike no more substantial than someone disliking a certain food.
Open file (343.92 KB 561x1600 christcuck golem.png)
>Humanity >Universalism isn't just proto marxism i.e gateway multiculturalism guys.. uhh Oh wait it is >Oy vey so what just believe in my abrahamic proto-marxist nihilism >Just pray, die, and it will go away white goyim! you will too oy vey!! >the brown biped monkeys who outnumber us will "learn" just trust the planTM that's made by yaweh, the same god jews worship with completely different rules of course goyim, ignore that last sentence though.. Oy gevalt! Thank the godS I'm not a christcuck holy shit you never cease to amaze. Fucking golems. I hate most of you retards so much. Especially you OP, you're a dumb fucking sheltered faggot, just another version of the leftoid NPC in his preaching diversity from the safety of his gated community.
>>1272 >I'll believe in nothing at all
>>1270 Incompatible with omniscience seeing as God must know what choices you take. >>1271 >Ignoring everything else I said in this post.
>>1274 >Incompatible with omniscience seeing as God must know what choices you take. So? God is also all-powerful, and all-righteous, God is the definity of good itself. All that is good is after God, there is no justice that is not derivative of Him. You just have a deformed conception of God.
>>1275 That's just avoiding the problem. There is an internal contradiction between the notions of free will, omniscience and god's all-righteousness. He has given us a sense of morality for the sake of differentiating good and evil. If God is just, it would be against his nature to do something unjust. Creating a person just so that they end up suffering for eternity is unjust. Therefore either God doesn't create people to people to go to hell, or he is unjust. By the time you take acts that would be considered evil under Christian morality, and go "it's okay because God did it" then you aren't discussing the moral implications of such a being, you are just ignoring the issue so that you can keep your beliefs the same as they are. >>1272 Do you have anything to add to the discussion besides the samey /pol/faggotry you cretins always spew?
Open file (29.36 KB 600x541 a42520a01.jpg)
>>1276 The Bible has the answers to these questions. >Therefore hearken unto me, ye men of understanding: far be it from God, that he should do wickedness; and from the Almighty, that he should commit iniquity. >For the work of a man shall he render unto him, and cause every man to find according to his ways. >Yea, surely God will not do wickedly, neither will the Almighty pervert judgment. - Job 34:10-12
>>1263 >God is good When we say God is X, we do not mean God possesses that quality, but that X's ultimate manifestation is found in God. The understanding of Good that we apply to God and his works is limited by our human experiences. There's higher levels of goodness that angels etc. experience that will never be experienced by a human in his lifetime. This is to say that God's actions aren't something that we can understand on a rational level. Think of a bug trying to understand a human's thought process. Except here the scale isn't bug to human but bug to infinity. Saying "God is good and therefore has to do X" is simply saying "If I were God I would do X". Going back to that bug, it's like the bug thinking the human is only capable of slapping. >>1276 >>1274 >He has given us a sense of morality for the sake of differentiating good and evil. If God is just, it would be against his nature to do something unjust. Creating a person just so that they end up suffering for eternity is unjust. Therefore either God doesn't create people to people to go to hell, or he is unjust. You're underestimating free will and its implications. God's running an experiment here. He's giving one of his creations the freedom to do whatever the fuck they want. Notice that no other creation is this privileged. Even angels aren't free like us. Freedom means freedom to fuck up, permanently. You have the freedom to do gross shit like fuck your mom or castrate yourself. The "suffering eternally" part is simply what happens when you choose to spiritually align yourself with things that aren't God. If you cut off your wiener, you're destroying God's creation, and your spirit aligns with things that aren't God. God is love, so you're aligned with its opposite, which is fear (biblically), and your spirit resides in the place you chose. There's no fire and brimstone, it's not a "punishment", you had the choice to reject God and you went with it. Now you're paying the price. It's a pretty tight system. Pretty simple too. The counter argument just amounts to >But how was I supposed to know that cutting my wiener was wrong? God should have put giant flashing signs saying DON'T CUT OFF YOUR WIENER and given me a billion bucks and a boyfriend-free girl so I would never feel the need to become a tranny! Which does hold water. Even if I'm mocking it because it's bitch made (and it is bitch made, man up). Or at least, it would be. If God didn't send his only-begotten Son to do exactly that. You're getting a holy book that's pretty specific about which parts you're supposed to cut off (none) and how you're supposed to crossdress (you're not). Other than explaining how to avoid doing retarded shit. It also gives a pretty easy method (compared to torah autism kosher laws) to remove all the retarded shit you did and be connected to God directly. And if that's not enough, it gives you a method to call on God anytime, and ask him to give you the boyfriend-free girl of your dreams IN THIS LIFE. Nigger, you're getting free cheat codes here, and you're whining that the game is unfair because the players get to do whatever they want. What more could God have done? Anything more than his incarnated Son and it would be just directly interfering in our life through supernatural means. Which defeats the whole point of "let's let them do whatever the fuck they want and see what comes out of it". >>1272 Whites will die, jews will die, brown nigger mutt hordes will die. Everything will die. >>1277 Did you even read the verse? It doesn't explain anything for him. It just says "God does good things and not bad things", thank you very much, I'm sure quoting barely-related verses will convert people because it did for you, retard.
>>1278 >Saying "God is good and therefore has to do X" is simply saying "If I were God I would do X". Going back to that bug, it's like the bug thinking the human is only capable of slapping. This is avoiding the problem once again. There is a difference between God not revealing something to us, and working in manner that is simply inconsistent to the qualities we know he posesses like "goodness", "justice". God does not only embody those qualities, but literally IS those qualities. God was told to not go against those qualities as >>1277 shown us with the passages from scripture. Therefore several logical problems appears. If God is good and does only things that are good then he would not commit injustice. Therefore why would he condemn people to hell? You might argue that hell is just, or that he doesn't condemn but further in this post I will explain why this doesn't exactly make sense. And if God is good, and does only things that are good, then where evil comes from? After all, God is omnipotent, omniscient and the sole creator of the universe. Why would evil exist then? Universalism solves both of those problems, because it negates the first one by simply saying... well God doesn't throw people in hell. And it makes the second problem irrelevant, because whatever we are to go through on this Earth, it will all eventually end well for everyone. >You're underestimating free will and its implications. Once again, this does not make sense with omniscience. God does not need to run an experiment. He already knows what you will spiritualy align yourself with even before creating you. He is omniscient, he knows everything. Free will cannot exist if a being who is omniscient created you, because that means that he simply COULD NOT HAVE created you without the prior-knowledge about your every thought, spiritual alignment and detail about life. It is not possible, because by definition, omniscience means that HE KNOWS ALL OF THIS EVEN BEFORE YOUR CREATION. That's what omniscience is, knowing literally everything. Even if you say he is outside of time, this doesn't change much, God MUST HAVE created you with the inherent knowledge of what you will do in your future, simply because his omniscience does not allow him to do otherwise. Therefore even before Adam and Eve took the forbidden fruit from the tree, even before they even existed, God already knew that they would do it. Not only that, but he already knew that the snake would fool them into eating it and created it as well by his own hands. Because nothing in this world according to Christian theology could have come from anything else than God.
I'm going to do the annoying thing where I snip parts of your post and post short replies. Because your posts lack a basic understanding of Christian theology. And instead are marred in pop culture understandings of what Christianity ought to be. >There is a difference between God not revealing something to us, and working in manner that is simply inconsistent to the qualities we know he posesses How would you go about teaching an ant calculus? How would an absolute being reveal absolute justice to limited beings? We know he possesses the absolute of these qualities. We don't know what the absolute of these qualities is like. And we can't. Not in this state at least. > God does not only embody those qualities, but literally IS those qualities God possesses these qualities. But he is not them. An intellectual is intelligent, but he is not intelligence. >God was told to not go against those qualities God can't be told what to do. >If God is good and does only things that are good then he would not commit injustice. Therefore why would he condemn people to hell? He doesn't. People condemn themselves to hell, by choosing things that aren't God. God is absolute goodness, by choosing things that aren't good, you're choosing things that aren't God. >And if God is good, and does only things that are good, then where evil comes from? If God is good, and does only things that are good. It follows that evil is things that aren't God and that God doesn't do. >Why would evil exist then? Because of freedom to choose. Angels were given the freedom to choose once, when Satan fell from heaven. We are given the freedom to choose at any time. >Universalism solves both of those problems "Universalism" brings you back to your initial question. Everyone is eventually saved, everyone is forgiven. Why have evil? Why have suffering? Why have humanity in the first place? It's already saved, so why not bring it all back to the garden of Eden? This second part I can address directly since it's one argument. >Once again, this does not make sense with omniscience It does. You're confusing omniscience with prescience. Your understanding of God is a wizard on a high castle that knows everything that will happen, and creates all the things. While we're talking about a being so intelligent, He possesses the totality of intelligence itself. Have you ever talked to somebody smarter than you? Somebody that made you feel like a retard in comparison? Humbling as it might be, it doesn't compare to absolute knowledge. You don't have the means to understand absolute knowledge. No human does, we can only describe absolute knowledge through our limited understanding of human knowledge. And yes, if God were the prescient wizard in a high castle that manufactures every human, he would be pretty evil to not manufacture every human to be a nice and cuddly teddy bear. But you're talking about a being that knows all things. Not only what will happen, but the absolute totality of all natural principles, universal laws, cosmic structures, truths and realities that we barely begin to understand. We're talking infinite degrees of prescience, infinite degrees of knowledge. A complex plan of creation that goes beyond what we can begin to imagine. >Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.
>>1282 >>1281 Accidental doublepost. Jannies, clean it up.
Open file (85.30 KB 600x752 1618445821401.jpg)
>>1276 Our notions of causation don't apply to a transcendent deity anon. Just because man understands a little of the totality of existence doesn't mean he can say "I understand it all". You've a big head, and you'll never let it go, because you want to reckon the whole from the point.
>>1280 Remains unsaid that second guessing God and attempting to know better than him is a mortal sin. Evil exists to trial the good.
Open file (21.03 KB 480x360 kjv_1.jpg)
>>1278 Hi anon. >When we say God is X, we do not mean God possesses that quality, but that X's ultimate manifestation is found in God. The problem with making a statement like this is that you cannot fully understand the distinction between "possession" versus being an ultimate manifestation. Perhaps it's both. Perhaps it is one of those things in one aspect, and the other in a different aspect. What you describe doesn't have to be a non-overlapping exclusion, a simple A or B choice, as you seem to treat it. In sum, you seem to be overstepping the bounds of what you should know. Like it says in 1 Corinthians 10:12, "Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall." >Saying "God is good and therefore has to do X" is simply saying "If I were God I would do X". The statement you bring up seems to be implying that the person saying what God "has to do" is making an implicit claim that THEY fully understand everything that is good. Obviously, this claim is bogus. We find out about what is good by observing God - we learn, we don't tell the absolute being what to do. >There's no fire and brimstone, it's not a "punishment", you had the choice to reject God and you went with it. Now you're paying the price. Sure there is fire and brimstone. Haven't you read the New Testament? >Did you even read the verse? It doesn't explain anything for him. Yes I did. Very carefully. Read the second verse, it says "For the work of a man shall he render unto him, and cause every man to find according to his ways." This addresses the other anon's concerns. God is simply bringing back whatever sin the individual has done back on their head. That's why it says he causes every man to find according to his ways. It's irony in the ultimate sense. It also proves that the person being punished is responsible for their own sins. Another verse that exemplifies this is in Psalm 9: >The LORD is known by the judgment which he executeth: the wicked is snared in the work of his own hands. Higgaion. Selah. From this Scripture, and the one in Job 34, we see that the person being punished is responsible for their own sins, and digging their own pit as it were. God is simply "rendering" the work of a man back to him. In other words, it's all the fault of the sinner. The fact they will burn in the pit of hell all eternity is entirely their fault, not God's. We should learn what is truly good by studying the works of God in this world. Amen. >>1280 Hi second anon. >If God is good and does only things that are good then he would not commit injustice. God understands justice better than you though. So if He acts justly and you get confused and think it is unjust, that just shows how superior the Lord God is compared to you, anon. I will worship our Lord forever. That's why I keep bringing up His word and showing how it has the only answers that breaks the cycle of questions because that glorifies Him. >well God doesn't throw people in hell. No, He totally does. He throws them in there forever. There is literal fire and suffering. Just imagining the fierceness of His wrath coming from the place of perfection only makes me have a greater fear for the Creator. As it says in Proverbs, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction."
Open file (35.49 KB 490x466 02d781488.jpg)
>>1305 I was going to also add this verse, Hebrews 2:3— "How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him;" Just imagine how important the only begotten Son is. Imagine how grievous of a sin it is to willfully ignore the gift of eternal life that He offered. We can only start to understand the depths of how glorious Christ is, and how important the only begotten Son is. >Free will cannot exist if a being who is omniscient created you Second anon, this is not necessarily true. God has all knowledge of what individuals would choose (this is often referred to as "middle knowledge"), but this precedes the act of creating them, meaning it cannot influence them. In other words, the existence of middle knowledge (which must be included in the omniscience of God), shows us that the moral agent is still at fault for their bad, sinful choices, anon. Besides, the Bible said so. As we learn from Proverbs, "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths."
Open file (32.63 KB 510x700 hannahprayer.gif)
>>1305 I think the spirit of anon number one was not against you, but the fault was in imprecise expression; he is not saying there will not be fire and brimstone in the end, just that some actions are so plainly wrong that it needn't take fire and brimstone to heed God's word in life as is. Though by faith we understand, even man's sense of right and wrong is but a gift of the grace of God, who in all things is the all-encompassing master.
>>1305 >The problem with making a statement like this is that you cannot fully understand the distinction between "possession" versus being an ultimate manifestation. Perhaps it's both. Perhaps it is one of those things in one aspect, and the other in a different aspect. What you describe doesn't have to be a non-overlapping exclusion, a simple A or B choice, as you seem to treat it. I am not overstepping my bounds in speculating about the nature of God. I'm making a point that attributing a quality to God is attributing the highest manifestation of that quality. I wasn't making any statement about whether God possesses ultimate goodness or is ultimate goodness. I used "Is found in God" because I needed to explain how that quality is attributed to God. I don't think there's a neutral/vague enough term that includes something being God, belonging to God, or both at the same time. >The statement you bring up seems to be implying that the person saying what God "has to do" is making an implicit claim that THEY fully understand everything that is good. Obviously, this claim is bogus. We find out about what is good by observing God - we learn, we don't tell the absolute being what to do. That's the point of the statement. Any theological claim that personifies the Godhead is essentially a way to bring up the little personal understandings of the traits of the divine to a human level and act as if God operates within the same system. >Sure there is fire and brimstone. Haven't you read the New Testament? That's after Judgement Day, not after death. >Yes I did. Very carefully. Read the second verse, it says "For the work of a man shall he render unto him, and cause every man to find according to his ways." This addresses the other anon's concerns. God is simply bringing back whatever sin the individual has done back on their head. That's why it says he causes every man to find according to his ways. It's irony in the ultimate sense. It also proves that the person being punished is responsible for their own sins. Ok, but the OP didn't get all that out of the verse, did he? He doesn't sound like he's scripturally trained enough to read the verse and understand the meaning you were getting at. That's the issue I was having, not the verse itself, but that there was no explanation. >we see that the person being punished is responsible for their own sins, and digging their own pit as it were. God is simply "rendering" the work of a man back to him. In other words, it's all the fault of the sinner. The fact they will burn in the pit of hell all eternity is entirely their fault, not God's. It is his fault because all things are "his fault". That's the problem OP was having, and he was trying to resolve it with his "everyone goes to heaven later" heresy. This misunderstanding can be resolved by explaining free will and the nature of God. Statements such as "God sends sinners to the lake of fire but he's not really responsible for it, end of" do more harm than good in easing these misunderstandings. Same goes with quoting random bible verses and expecting him to "get it".
>>1333 >I am not overstepping my bounds in speculating about the nature of God To be fair, I probably was with >>1282 <God possesses these qualities. But he is not them. An intellectual is intelligent, but he is not intelligence. That's my inner palamist sympathies showing.
>>1307 >just that some actions are so plainly wrong that it needn't take fire and brimstone to heed God's word in life as is All wrong actions are plainly wrong. Even if you do what's wrong without knowing it's wrong, there will be an inner feeling of self-hatred and cringe. That's why >"Our Salvation is of God, our perdition of ourselves." All good/moral actions come from a higher source of absolute goodness. They're invoked, not created. >Though by faith we understand, even man's sense of right and wrong is but a gift of the grace of God Man's sense of right and wrong comes from man's senses of what is God and what isn't God.
Open file (53.40 KB 200x200 old_man.png)
>>1335 No disagreement there. If someone thinks man has it in him to save himself, they wouldn't be religious.
Open file (372.95 KB 1000x667 2acfec83c.jpg)
>>1333 >That's after Judgement Day, not after death. In Luke 16 it says this: >19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: >20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, >21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. >22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; >23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And in Mark 9:47 it says, >And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: Hopefully that clarifies things. Because the world is certainly determined to confuse others about this issue and misrepresent what the Bible does say in very clear terms. >Same goes with quoting random bible verses and expecting him to "get it". Not at all, because it says in Romans 10:17, "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
>>1336 Though your >>1335 last sentence >Man's sense of right and wrong comes from man's senses of what is God and what isn't God. Man has that sense but it is imperfect and derivative from the disobedience of the original sin. Eve judged "that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise" and in the presumption that her judgement was right, "took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat" earning themselves divine rebuke. God is the one that sets the plain that we walk upon, our senses are insufficient to work good without there having been the mystery of grace through Christ. Humility is paramount.
>>1337 Luke 16 confirms torment after death for sinners, but not fire and brimstone. That happens when they're thrown into the lake of fire on his terrible day of judgment.
>>1337 And I think Mark 9:47 is using "fire" in the sense of "energy", as in one is cast into the energies/powers/emanations of hell by choosing health over The Kingdom Of God. "Fire" was used to mean "energy" by at least Heraclitus Of Ephesus as far as I know, so there's a precedent for this usage in Ancient Greek.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

no cookies?