There is only one God

[optimisticzoomer]

con men? is that why almost every single one of these preachers were executed horrifically for their belief alone and none profited whatsoever, they just did it to be pejorated by society?

So what if a schizo now claims to have turned some bread and fish into 5000 meals? Would they believe him in 2000 years?

 

[gingerjfl]

So what if a schizo now claims to have turned some bread and fish into 5000 meals? Would they believe him in 2000 years?

It really depends if people believe him currently, and if thousands witnessed this occuring and we lived in a society without the technology to make this physically possible, if this is all true then sure. Also what makes u think theyre schizophrenic?

 

[liberty]

its necessary as the offer of free will was the most loving outcome, our choosing it was our own fault, not one of these couldve been averted

so your argument is that "Free will leads to evil choices some of the time, therefore if he wants us to have free will its necessary for evil to exist"

but why not create a universe where choices only lead to positive or perfect outcomes?

our choices are already limited (i.e. i cant just start levitating), so its possible for there to be a universe where evil, destructive acts are simply not an option, in the same way levitating isnt an option for me

humans in that universe will have free will and commit no evil whatsoever, and it would be better than our current one. thus, the current universe is imperfect

 

[optimisticzoomer]

It really depends if people believe him currently, and if thousands witnessed this occuring and we lived in a society without the technology to make this physically possible, if this is all true then sure. Also what makes u think theyre schizophrenic?

I didn't say they were, but I'm saying someone now could be. Well I mean, they could've been schizo, but then they wouldn't be conmen. Regardless, I'm not getting any rep out of this conversation so imma head out

 

[gingerjfl]

so your argument is that "Free will leads to evil choices some of the time, therefore if he wants us to have free will its necessary for evil to exist"

but why not create a universe where choices only lead to positive or perfect outcomes?

our choices are already limited (i.e. i cant just start levitating), so its possible for there to be a universe where evil, destructive acts are simply not an option, in the same way levitating isnt an option for me

humans in that universe will have free will and commit no evil whatsoever, and it would be better than our current one. thus, the current universe is imperfect

yes, evil has necessary existence.

if there was a universe without negative outcomes, there also would exist no positive outcomes, it works in balance.

Again, if evil did not exist neither would good, also 'levitating' is not a mortal trait.

It would not be better than the current one because they would feel no temptation toward immoral acts, if goodness is all you CAN, then it is invaluable.

 

[gingerjfl]

I didn't say they were, but I'm saying someone now could be. Well I mean, they could've been schizo, but then they wouldn't be conmen. Regardless, I'm not getting any rep out of this conversation so imma head out

you mean you arent winning so you will leave, either way have a good day/night i have no hate for u man.

 

[Squirtoutmabooty]

thats a protestant notion, most actual catholics and orthodox believe the stories to be literal truths or metaphorical teachings of the Christ and his character.

St. Augustine stated that if Genesis were to contradict scientific discoveries it should be considered metaphorical, and all but outright stated he considered it to be so. Aquinas said scripture should be interpreted figuratively if its literal meaning contradicts scientific knowledge.

 

[gingerjfl]

St. Augustine stated that if Genesis were to contradict scientific discoveries it should be considered metaphorical, and all but outright stated he considered it to be so. Aquinas said scripture should be interpreted figuratively if its literal meaning contradicts scientific knowledge.

i did say that most orthodox/catholics believe some to be metaphorical though. Also may i see a citation for your second point?

 

[liberty]

if there was a universe without negative outcomes, there also would exist no positive outcomes, it works in balance.

why not? is god incapable of creating a universe where this isnt the case?

It would not be better than the current one because they would feel no temptation toward immoral acts, if goodness is all you CAN, then it is invaluable.

why is it invaluable? if pleasure is all i can do, its still pleasure

any time you give a reason for why evil is necessary, i can always respond "why cant god subvert that necessity?"

 

[gingerjfl]

why not? is god incapable of creating a universe where this isnt the case?


why is it invaluable? if pleasure is all i can do, its still pleasure

any time you give a reason for why evil is necessary, i can always respond "why cant god subvert that necessity?"

Hes not incapable, it just isnt the most loving thing to do.

Pleasure is different from good in that pleasure is a feeling whereas good is a moral value.

God can technically subvert that necessity, God allows evil to exist otherwise it would be inexistent.

 

[liberty]

Hes not incapable, it just isnt the most loving thing to do.

why isnt it? he can order it to be the most loving if he's in charge
a universe where pure moral goodness is the most loving path > a universe where evil is necessary for it to be the most loving

the second option is inferior

 

[optimisticzoomer]

you mean you arent winning so you will leave, either way have a good day/night i have no hate for u man.

Nahhhh
I don't think anyone unbiased reading will see your magic arguments as you winning

Anyway goodbye

 

[Squirtoutmabooty]

i did say that most orthodox/catholics believe some to be metaphorical though. Also may i see a citation for your second point?

SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The nature and extent of sacred doctrine (Prima Pars, Q. 1)

Is it necessary? Is it a science? Is it one or many? Is it speculative or practical? How it is compared with other sciences? Is it the same as wisdom? Is God its subject-matter? Is it a matter of argument? Does it rightly employ metaphors and similes? May the Sacred Scripture of this doctrine be...

www.newadvent.org

Article 9

 

[gingerjfl]

why isnt it? he can order it to be the most loving if he's in charge
a universe where pure moral goodness is the most loving path > a universe where evil is necessary for it to be the most loving

the second option is inferior

but he chose it to be the most loving, even if you do not believe in a divine you must agree that if one did exist we would be living in the most perfect world, clearly according to God we are living in a perfect world.
Who gave you authority to dictate that? Are you omniscient?

i disagree if the omniscient Lord disagrees.

 

[Deleted member 118164]

why isnt it? he can order it to be the most loving if he's in charge
a universe where pure moral goodness is the most loving path > a universe where evil is necessary for it to be the most loving

the second option is inferior

ur literally onto nothing lmfao imagine being so insecure and frustrated

 

[Kater Maxxing]

lol. All these Grey's. Consequences of not privating the forum

 

[liberty]

but he chose it to be the most loving

he chose the most loving universe to be one in which evil is necessary?

instead of one where evil is unnecessary and its pure goodness?

sounds imperfect

 

[gingerjfl]

SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: The nature and extent of sacred doctrine (Prima Pars, Q. 1)

Is it necessary? Is it a science? Is it one or many? Is it speculative or practical? How it is compared with other sciences? Is it the same as wisdom? Is God its subject-matter? Is it a matter of argument? Does it rightly employ metaphors and similes? May the Sacred Scripture of this doctrine be...

www.newadvent.org

Article 9

interesting, i think i remember studying this during my school course, but it is also important to note that although the church doctor is very wise, his teachings are not infallible, he is mortal like the rest.
Also in the article it states he goes on to declare that most are in keeping with science anyways, either way i do not agree with him entirely, interesting he thought that though while church fathers disagree like St Augustine for example.

 

[liberty]

ur literally onto nothing lmfao imagine being so insecure and frustrated

i think youre projecting, im just asking the dude some questions

 

[gingerjfl]

lol. All these Grey's. Consequences of not privating the forum

what has me being grey got to do with my religious knowledge, i was bored and wanted to debate, whats wrong with doing that in the offtopic forum?

 

[gingerjfl]

he chose the most loving universe to be one in which evil is necessary?

instead of one where evil is unnecessary and its pure goodness?

sounds imperfect

Exactly

'pure goodness' is not good at all imo

unfortunately, you are mortal so this opinion is without all knowledge of the universe nor with divine intellect.

 

[gingerjfl]

i think youre projecting, im just asking the dude some questions

idk why he is being that way, i appreciate your questions and see ur being respectful, im the one who asked for a debate ur just obliging.

 

[liberty]

'pure goodness' is not good at all imo

why not? it sounds as good as it gets to me

 

[Kater Maxxing]

what has me being grey got to do with my religious knowledge, i was bored and wanted to debate, whats wrong with doing that in the offtopic forum?

There are 100 retards just like you on this forum. Completely pointeless. Debating you is no use as you would have no factual argument or source

 

[gingerjfl]

why not? it sounds as good as it gets to me

let me try to explain the hierarchy i referenced earlier.

1. God himself- the highest of all beings.
2. the archangels (these must be of lower value and grace to the Lord as in order for the Lord to be the most powerful he can have no equal)
3. etc etc

See what i mean by there being a hierarchy of goodness, now the archangels do not have the same amount of grace as the Lord, meaning they have some room without grace, it is in this shadow that is where sin is created, as there must be a contrast of good/evil or neither exists. If these angels were to be without room for choice and non-good, then the Lord would be witholding the choice of evil from them which is not loving.

Sorry for the terrible explanation but i hope u understand what im trying to convey

 

[gingerjfl]

There are 100 retards just like you on this forum. Completely pointeless. Debating you is no use as you would have no factual argument or source

Its of use to me, i learnt some of St Aquinas' beliefs from a user that i didnt know prior, also its fun to test my knowledge in a 'field of discourse' so to speak, why do you hold so much hate in your heart?

 

[Kater Maxxing]

Its of use to me, i learnt some of St Aquinas' beliefs from a user that i didnt know prior, also its fun to test my knowledge in a 'field of discourse' so to speak, why do you hold so much hate in your heart?

Christianity was a belief system created by higher ups to control and manipulate the masses. There you have it

 

[gingerjfl]

Christianity was a belief system created by higher ups to control and manipulate the masses. There you have it

Was it? Well that was a miserable failure considering it just further suppressed workers and the actual 'higher ups' like Pilate, Caesar and the religious leaders of Judea all condemned it and literally orchestrated en masse death sentences against believers.

 

[Deleted member 91301]

There are many "gods" but Christ is the one and only true one

 

[liberty]

there must be a contrast of good/evil or neither exists.

why cant god make it so this contrast is unnecessary and good can exist by itself?

but okay, lets say contrast is necessary. why cant we have a world that is neutral vs good?

do you believe evil is a sort of "regress" or just a lack of goodness? if the latter, i'd say a world where people commit mass sin is definitely more evil than one without anything at all, despite both lacking goodness equally, which would disprove the "lack of goodness" option

 

[gingerjfl]

why cant god make it so this contrast is unnecessary and good can exist by itself?

but okay, lets say contrast is necessary. why cant we have a world that is neutral vs good?

do you believe evil is a sort of "regress" or just a lack of goodness? if the latter, i'd say a world where people commit mass sin is definitely more evil than one without anything at all, despite both lacking goodness equally, which would disprove the "lack of goodness" option

Why should he? There are other uses for evil, for example is makes life itself testing, God wants us to prove our love to ascend to Heaven, without the possibility of evil we wouldnt be able to prove ourselves.

What exactly is a neutral? a neutral is a mid-ground, without evil this is impossible.

Evil is a lack of goodness, where goodness isnt, evil is. Please can you rephrase that last sentence, im sorry i dont understand.

 

[Deleted member 118164]

i think youre projecting, im just asking the dude some questions

you are just being uninformed because the sentence " he can order it to be the most loving if he's in charge " sounds like a 3rd grader just got introduced to christianity .

" a universe where pure moral goodness is the most loving path " is also the universe " where evil is necessary for it to be the most loving " , but there really is no thing such as good or evil as the human was created harmoniously but he somehow found a way to pervert all the goodness he was given in order to cause the literal and literary history . " the second option " as you reffered to it ( " a universe where evil is necessary for it to be the most loving " ) is not " inferior " because it is not God that " chose the most loving universe to be one in which evil is necessary " but the man who ruined everything by not listening to the creator who made everything available to him with one condition : that of showing obedience, submission, and love to the end, and not to touch the tree of the knowledge of good and evil . By not listening to God , the man tore apart whatever you call " pure goodness " or perfection . God created the man with love but in the end He felt bad for creating him because no sooner after he banned Adam and Eve from Eden because of them commiting the first sin ( the disobedience ) , sin advanced , resulting in the birth of actual ecclesiastical and world history . Kant says the man is sinning because of its particular filthy nature , and that is because God has no literal control over what the man chooses to do . If one sins , he cannot blame his filthy condition on nobody else but himself as son of Adam . By believing in a gentle , loving , generous God you accept the fact that suffering is needed in order to get closed to Him . I understand that is hard to understand how basic christianity ideas work but in you own manner of thinking and philosophizing , really , you are not completely wrong but you have to make a difference between these concepts : good , evil , beyond good and evil . I suggest you reading some works of Cioran , Camus , Kierkegaard , Nietzsche to understand some basic notions that will make you realise that the absurdity of daily life is not God's work and He really does nothing to do with trivial remarks such as " people do not always behave as they should " or " people are dumb " , because even one who seems to us to act in irrational manners acts by some form of reasoning . It is God who created the man but it is really is the man who perverted beauty , goodness, peace into filth . Evil would not of have been necessary if only the man listened to God .

 

[Deleted member 118164]

why cant god make it so this contrast is unnecessary and good can exist by itself?

but okay, lets say contrast is necessary. why cant we have a world that is neutral vs good?

do you believe evil is a sort of "regress" or just a lack of goodness? if the latter, i'd say a world where people commit mass sin is definitely more evil than one without anything at all, despite both lacking goodness equally, which would disprove the "lack of goodness" option

"i'd say a world where people commit mass sin is definitely more evil than one without anything at all, despite both lacking goodness equally"

common sense lol

 

[liberty]

Why should he? There are other uses for evil, for example is makes life itself testing, God wants us to prove our love to ascend to Heaven, without the possibility of evil we wouldnt be able to prove ourselves.

Why not? You can test humans in any number of ways, including with a test (sheet of paper) in the physical sense. Why spawn them in a world of evil and suffering as a way to prove themselves, when they can live in a utopia and take another kind of test in the end?

Also, participating in a battle royale-like world full of evil in order to reach a prize is very anti-free will. You are punished with the consequences of evil around you, just so you can be tested for something you never consented to being tested for. I dont think its loving.

What exactly is a neutral? a neutral is a mid-ground, without evil this is impossible.

Evil is a lack of goodness, where goodness isnt, evil is. Please can you rephrase that last sentence, im sorry i dont understand.

Okay, what about actions that dont bring about any good vs actions that bring evil? Both contain zero goodness, but one contains evil, while the other one has no effect, cant be judged as anything meaningful.

For example, if i press a key on my keyboard, im not doing anything good, but im not doing anything evil. If i murder someone, im not doing anything good, but im now also committing evil.

Now imagine a sort of world with actions like pressing keys on a keyboard, and along with them, there are actions that are good. The good actions will seem good by contrast and there isnt really any evil to speak of. You dont need things like murder for contrast, you just need these sort of meaningless neutral actions to serve as a comparison to the pleasures of goodness.

 

[gingerjfl]

Why not? You can test humans in any number of ways, including with a test (sheet of paper) in the physical sense. Why spawn them in a world of evil and suffering as a way to prove themselves, when they can live in a utopia and take another kind of test in the end?

Also, participating in a battle royale-like world full of evil in order to reach a prize is very anti-free will. You are punished with the consequences of evil around you, just so you can be tested for something you never consented to being tested for. I dont think its loving.


Okay, what about actions that dont bring about any good vs actions that bring evil? Both contain zero goodness, but one contains evil, while the other one has no effect, cant be judged as anything meaningful.

For example, if i press a key on my keyboard, im not doing anything good, but im not doing anything evil. If i murder someone, im not doing anything good, but im now also committing evil.

Now imagine a sort of world with actions like pressing keys on a keyboard, and along with them, there are actions that are good. The good actions will seem good by contrast and there isnt really any evil to speak of. You dont need things like murder for contrast, you just need these sort of meaningless neutral actions to serve as a comparison to the pleasures of goodness.

Its important to note God did not create suffering , he created the capacity for suffering and we caused its coming about despite being explicitly told by the almighy not to, however i understand your point , i am not attempting to understand all the Lord's intentions but i would assume it is the most grandiose and effective system ever devised, a paper test is fallible.

i dont know if battle royale is really the correct term, and it is not anti-free will just because your actions have consequences, it is very true that you could steal a painting, this is free will, you can choose to, but you are not exempt from the consequences.

An action that brings about no good is inherently evil, i believe in a total balance, for something to be perfectly central is entirely unfathomable, there is no mid-ground.

Pressing the key is a good act, as it brings about no evil, granted it is entirely not fruitful, but the fact you did no wrong means you did something good, also for it to be not-good this means good must exist for it not to be so.

In this world you have devised, they are still in contrast with what is good, in fact this contrast is more stark as you have limited the variables of free will by half, now pressing that key is far more evil as it is worth less value than the good. Pinker theorised the Euphemism treadmill, this is alike to that, the wrongness of murder is now attributed to the key-pressing. Silly as that sounds.

 

[liberty]

" a universe where pure moral goodness is the most loving path " is also the universe " where evil is necessary for it to be the most loving "

What i meant by the first one is "A universe where only good is possible, while allowing for free will" being the most "loving" one is better than a universe where "evil must exist for free will" being the most loving one

 

[ThugggButt]

Debate me im entirely certain that the Christ is Lord.

if there is a god they probably don't care if I worship them or not,
it would be weird since although they may have given me free will they still created my brain and the place I was born into, essentially controlling if I worship them or not

 

[ThugggButt]

if there is a god they probably don't care if I worship them or not,
it would be weird since although they may have given me free will they still created my brain and the place I was born into, essentially controlling if I worship them or not

I think everyone should just be a good person

 

[Deleted member 118164]

What i meant by the first one is "A universe where only good is possible, while allowing for free will" being the most "loving" one is better than a universe where "evil must exist for free will" being the most loving one

this is pretty logic and it has nothing to do with philosophy at all so your just yappin trying to justify that God is evil or whatever

 

[Harold O'brien]

Debate me im entirely certain that the Christ is Lord.

go back to reddit

 

[Deleted member 55437]

Please no religion talk

 

[gingerjfl]

if there is a god they probably don't care if I worship them or not,
it would be weird since although they may have given me free will they still created my brain and the place I was born into, essentially controlling if I worship them or not

Worshipping God in the christian term is both pledging your allegiance to Christ, and more importantly acknowledging him, you have been given free will to choose of your own accord whether to accept your Lord or not, it means a lot to the Christ that his child should come and talk with him despite mortal temptations.

 

[gingerjfl]

I think everyone should just be a good person

This is a good philosophy.

 

[gingerjfl]

Please no religion talk

go back to reddit

Ive never spoke of religion on reddit and whats wrong with religion? It is the crux of many of our lives and this forum is rife with muslims, i dont see why you hate it so much. Just ignore the post?

 

[Deleted member 55437]

Ive never spoke of religion on reddit and whats wrong with religion? It is the crux of many of our lives and this forum is rife with muslims, i dont see why you hate it so much. Just ignore the post?

Please no religion. It’s divisive and could offend people of different faiths

 

[gingerjfl]

Please no religion. It’s divisive and could offend people of different faiths

I am well versed on many faiths and ive not said anything offensive? I see plenty of other religious posts whats wrong with mine?

 

[liberty]

Its important to note God did not create suffering , he created the capacity for suffering and we caused its coming about despite being explicitly told by the almighy not to, however i understand your point , i am not attempting to understand all the Lord's intentions but i would assume it is the most grandiose and effective system ever devised, a paper test is fallible.

God can create a perfect paper test. He is all-powerful. The test would involve zero suffering and be superior to being tested your whole life by suffering evil actions.

i dont know if battle royale is really the correct term, and it is not anti-free will just because your actions have consequences, it is very true that you could steal a painting, this is free will, you can choose to, but you are not exempt from the consequences.

Its anti free will to make someone participate in a world where they have to suffer evil for X purpose, as opposed to a world where evil doesnt exist as a test metric for said purpose and you can do whatever you want. You can have a world where people are unaffected by consequences, at least negatively.

In this world you have devised, they are still in contrast with what is good, in fact this contrast is more stark as you have limited the variables of free will by half

I haven't. Earlier you said being unable to fly isnt an example of a restriction on free will, because "it's not for mortals".
In my world, all evil actions are beyond mortals in the same way. Not even that the people lack the capacity, but the world has nothing in it where evilness can be exercised.

now pressing that key is far more evil as it is worth less value than the good.

yet it's neutral from a human standpoint, it doesnt have any meaningful negative consequences, while still being part of god's test. He can do his testing in a way where we suffer less.

Pinker theorised the Euphemism treadmill, this is alike to that, the wrongness of murder is now attributed to the key-pressing. Silly as that sounds.

You can attribute whatever you like, the fact is that it causes way less negative emotions in humans. A universe like that would contain less suffering. With meaningless, "button-mashing" actions vs good ones. Murder and all other ills of society are nonexistent. A universe like that would be superior to our current one. And as i mentioned above, it does not restrict free will.

 

[Deleted member 55437]

I am well versed on many faiths, ive not said anything offensive? I see plenty of other religious posts whats wrong with mine?

Please bro for the sake of humanity don’t post. You might offend Muslims, Jews , etc

 

[gingerjfl]

Please bro for the sake of humanity don’t post. You might offend Muslims, Jews , etc

almost everything i have said is within the teachings of all the abrahamic faiths, this is moreso for a fun debate im not trying to convert or crusade against secularism.

 

[Deleted member 55437]

almost everything i have said is within the teachings of all the abrahamic faiths, this is moreso for a fun debate im not trying to convert or crusade against secularism.

For humanity sake stop bro