/christ/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

> God only asserts that he is good and that his law and commands are what is best. However, why should we believe him?

There is no rational way for a creature to question his creator. Any understanding of what is good or bad is dependent upon the faculties God has specifically designed to fulfill the purposes He designed them for and He has given them to fulfill whatever purpose He has for you and them. Why should we believe God? Because our very ability to understand that such concepts as good and evil exist are given to us by Him. There is no authority greater than God and so there is no authority which can justifiably or logically contradict His claim. Even if you would want to posit that God's position is subjective to God, when such things as the laws of physics, the fundamental nature of matter and space, and the continued existence of these things are dependent upon His subjective desires and opinions, objectivity becomes synonymous with God's subjectivity.

That is the Objective determining factor which defines good is presuppositionally dependent upon what God finds good.

> Under secular systems of morality for example punishments like eternal damnation for offenses such as simple disbelief due to lack of evidence or inborn nature such as homosexuality. Are very much immoral.

Because when exercised in a totalitarian fashion by creatures it is a usurpation of the Creators authority by those creatures. God gives life, he is the only one who can take it unless He specifically arbitrates that role to another to act in His stead. Furthermore this question rests upon a faulty presupposition. No human can punish any crime eternally, it is not possible and so the question makes no sense.

God being the creator and sustainer of the universe, down to every quark and up to every quasar, does not operate on a lack of evidence, he has access to the entire testimony of the combined history of every fiber of matter that has ever been, currently is or shall ever be.

> Some of God's commands seem very arbitrary as well such as forbidding masturbation or pride

Masturbation is never explicitly forbidden only lust and only lust outside of marriage. Eve was specifically made for Adam, they inaugurate the human species through their marriage and set the pattern for the God ordained union of marriage. Sexual Desire exists to fulfill a particular purpose in that union and it's expression outside of that union is a perversion of God's gift of marriage and sex. Pride is inappropriate because we are creatures entirely dependent upon the purposes of God to even exist, everything we do we do because it is God's purposes that we do them. To attribute to ourselves our accomplishments, that is in an undue fashion, is to deny God his proper tribute in bringing us what glories and blessings he chose to.

> God never seems to think he needs to explain himself to thinking, rational creatures.

Why should he have to? God does not owe us anything. Furthermore your assumption that humans are rational is skewed. We are certainly capable of reason but only in a dim and imperfect way. Human reason is contained by the limitations of brain-matter and whatever further faculty the soul may provide, if any. God's reason is not. It would be like a peasant demanding an emperor to justify his laws.

What I do not see anyone doing is questioning God's wisdom in how to order the physical laws of reality, why then would we question His wisdom in how to order it's moral laws? It's a fundamentally inconsistent question.

You said at the outset that we are assuming the Christian God exists but this question operates under the assumption that the universe as we know it is somehow a completely independent paradigm from God.

> Why are our systems of morality less worthwhile than God's?

Because humans are naturally bent towards sin as a result of being the children of the sinner Adam. You inherit from your Father what your Father can give you, Adam can not give holiness, only God can.

> Especially if his morality seems to be opposed to our happiness and well-being?

One of the basic assumptions of law, human or divine, is that happiness must be put beneath justice. A murderer is not happy to receive the death penalty, nor does that punishment benefit his well-being but he is given it to satisfy justice.

>>3647

> Then worship of God isn't an obedience born out of respect or admiration. But instead simple fear.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, as scripture says. Nobody worships God perfectly, if god specified that only people who worshiped Him out of respect would be blessed by Him then you would be here complaining that God is too picky and that He should bless everyone who gives Him worship for whatever reason. God asks of us obedience. the why's and wherefores He does not seem to indicate are important. God gave us the capacity to fear for a reason. It causes us to flee from things that would kill our bodies, similarly it may serve the purpose of causing us to flee from things which will kill our soul.

Is God giving us a mechanism to save our flesh reprehensible? If not why would giving us a mechanism to save our spirits be reprehensible?

> I certainly don't agree that might makes right.

The very concepts of both might and right are allowed to exist in our minds because of God's perpetual sustaining of the universe and not deciding to wipe the cosmic chalkboard clean. This is an issue more fundamental than might makes right. It is the basic assumption that the game-designer is the one who designs the game.

> However a lawnmower is not a thinking entity. It doesn't have a free will or agency to respect.

God's free will is freer than ours. God's thinking is more thoughtful than ours, god is infinitely more of an agent than we are. We are as a pot to a potter, mere clay to be shaped and used for whatever purpose, honorable or dishonorable, He sees fit. What we understand as thought and agency are basic and dissatisfying metaphors for the thoughts and agency of God.

> However we do not think it is reasonable that a child be ordered to worship their parent

Because the parent has a parent them self, going back to the first parents. It is not rational to worship your parents because if your parents believed there was a creator more worthy of worship than themselves then the logical thing to do would be to worship your grandparents and the their parents and so on. Only God who is uncreated and from who flows all life is worship properly attributed.

> and never responds to reasonable disagreement

This presupposes that disagreement with God is reasonable. You're arguing from your conclusion not proving it.

> . In fact if a parent thought he had absolute power over his child and was within his right to deal out immense punishment such as torture he would be considered abusive.

The key word being "thought". God does not think He has absolute power, He has absolute power, He defines power, He defines absolute, He defines punishment and justice. The parent who takes on this authority does so by attributing to themselves what only properly belongs to God and as such committing an abuse.

> Thanks for your time.

No problem, I hope my answers have helped you.

This board post limit is way too short.

>>3647

I'll try and chime in with my two cents. I'll admit that for me the thought of being able to be a God is the main drive, but already the scriptural morality sort of overlapped with my "secular" morality.

>Under secular systems of morality

These are pragmatic and born out of a desire for order of some kind with no redeeming spiritual value; a less perfect and inspired version of God's law.

> simple disbelief due to lack of evidence

This one's complicated because it depends on whether God thinks you ever had a chance or not. Some yanomami girl in Brazil will be judged differently than you; you have the internet at your finger tips, and unfortunately you don't get to set the standard for what qualifies as "enough evidence" when all you're being asked to do is accept Christ as your savior (additional steps subject to denominational controversy).

> inborn nature such as homosexuality.

Its what you do with it that counts, not "what you are". You're born with hands capable of throttling infants by the heaps, but its whether you choose to do so or not that counts. Free will is great.

>very arbitrary as well such as forbidding masturbation or pride.

I think you may simply need to study more. There are reasonable motives for this.

>God never seems to think he needs to explain himself to thinking, rational creatures.

What is the Bible?

>Why are our systems of morality less worthwhile than God's?

Because man is imperfect, so are his laws and his machinations.

> Especially if his morality seems to be opposed to our happiness and well-being?

Wickedness was never happiness. You don't understand just how wretched you are because you have no objective purity to compare it to, you live in a world of grey as do all mortals. Most humans barely deserve the Telestial Kingdom, let alone the Terrestrial kingdom or the Celestial kingdom; but that's where most of us go because God's love for us is so magnificent, and Christ's atonement washes our sins clean.

>Because he will send you to hell for disobeying him.

This is afundamental misunderstanding of how God works. He give you every chance and oportunity to be made clean, but He won't deny free will. He doesn't send you anywhere, you go where you go due to your actions. To give a different example than Mormonism, from what I udnerstand in Orthodoxy, all souls "go" to the same place, but those who are like God experience His presence as a positive sensation, while those who are wicked fundamentally alter the physical material of their composition so that they experience pain in the presence of God.

>However we do not think it is reasonable that a child be ordered to worship their parent

This is perfectly reasonable, which is why we honor our relatives. What you must do is magnify your definition and perception of a parent enough that to worship them makes sense: that's God.

>who never explains their actions and never responds to reasonable disagreement as being a good parent.

The Scriptures, again.

> The child would be under no obligation to respect such a parent. And should in fact flee the situation and break all ties.

This doesn't work because there is no more Supreme Authority than God, unlike with parents and governments. Likewise, a parent doing so only breaks accepted subjective standard (in some nations only, might I add, my first world friend), whereas God sets the objective standard.

You must begin to think of God as a force of nature to begin to get this mind set. You can do as you like, but there will be concequences. God's reasoning is so far above your own that you'll likely never understand it, He cannot "stoop" to your level, but He sent His son to pay for your sins at Gethsemane and

>>3651

Cont.

die on the cross so that you might understand. Think of God like gravity: its a fact of life, not some set of laws you can bypass, rationalize away or ignore. You simply deal with them as best you can, and of course you may always choose to ignore them and deal with the consequences of such actions.

>>3647

>Why is God worthy of being worshiped?

Because God is the supreme value; God is the epitome of all that is good, true, virtuous, beautiful and wise; if you find anything of value in this life know that the core of that value, its essence and source, is from and of God. He is perfect goodness, truth, beauty, wisdom and love and so therefore the thing in this world most worthy of worship.

t. a >>>/goodchristian/

>>3647

>God only asserts that he is good and that his law and commands are what is best.

No. God is the source of all good in the world. Good means just "close to God" while evil/sin means "absense of God". God is a priori good.

All righteousness derives from him.

>Then worship of God isn't an obedience born out of respect or admiration. But instead simple fear. This only justifies God's nature through his use of power. I certainly don't agree that might makes right.

And fear him we should.

>This one is actually sort of robust. If I designed a lawnmower I would know what is best for the lawnmower. It's designed to cut grass and any use of it outside of that purpose is not within it's original intent and therefore it is probably not best suited to that task. As a paperweight for example it's far too big and unwieldy. As a weapon it's woefully inadequate compared to other weapons. I'm getting silly but you get my point. However a lawnmower is not a thinking entity. It doesn't have a free will or agency to respect.

This never convinced me. If a devil was to create something, should it worship the devil or God?

>Why is God worthy of being worshiped?

We owe it to him. We owe nothing and everything, even our soul is borrowed from him. He gains nothing from this, he just does it out of grace. Worshipping him seems decent to me and smart, him being jealous after all…

>>3649

>>3650

This.

OP, that's quite a mouthful. I'll answer bit by bit now and then.

>>3647

>A relatively simple question I'm sure that some of you are used to. But as of yet I haven't heard what I think to be a satisfactory answer. This question of course assumes that the Christian god exists.

As often, this is a question that doesn't really come to the mind of a Christian because it's thinking from another perspective entirely, one from which a Christian has nothing to gain.

To clarify, we don't wonder whether God is worthy of being worshipped, because if we didn't think so, we wouldn't think He was God to begin with. This is why this question doesn't occur to us.

It isn't about worshipping a superior as much as it is trying to connect with the source of everything, of which you are a part of, whose child you are. It's a very basic human thing to do, and so far, it doesn't even require much specification.

>>3647

>example punishments like eternal damnation for offenses such as simple disbelief due to lack of evidence or inborn nature such as homosexuality.

Some experts have argued (convincingly) that "eternal punishment" should be translated as "cyclical correction", given the words used in the New Testament in the original Greek. Early Church history also supports the idea that Hell is not forever and not a place of torment, but some sort of temporary school, or what Catholics understand to be Purgatory.

>>3647

>Some of God's commands seem very arbitrary as well such as forbidding masturbation or pride.

Masturbation is never forbidden anywhere in the Bible. Onan was SMOTE because he betrayed his brother by not impregnating his brother's wife (thus continuing the dead brother's lineage); Onan, moreover, just pulled out and shot web into the sand. There's no mention of him jacking it off and even if that was stated, the offense remains the betrayal, not the sexual act, whichever it is.

Apart from that, there's nothing else. Not even Leviticus lists it as a thing not to do, and if Leviticus doesn't list it…

Pride is a sin, but there are different sorts of Pride. Sinful Pride is the competitive kind, where you try to think yourself superior to others and build your identity through that, instead of simply being proud of yourself.

>God never seems to think he needs to explain himself to thinking, rational creatures.

Most often because that was not necessary: people actually understood easily. Old Testament tells you not to eat shellfish. It doesn't say why, but the Hebrews knew it was poisonous. No need for explanation beyond that. Most of these laws are explained this way.

You can't guess why adultery is so severely punished (stoning) but that's because you have no idea what it entails back then. To you, it's a heartbreak at most, to the Hebrews, it's much more.

STD's, back then, could decimate the Hebrew tribe (and probably did at some points); also, Hebrews believed sperm could remain active for a year inside a woman; also, lineage was of utmost importance back then, and adultery threatened to spoil this forever.

All of these reasons and more got you death penalty for that crime. Endangering the whole tribe (reducing its numbers meant making it more likely to get enslaved by other tribes and nations) got you death penalty.

There is always a context to everything in the Bible and it is utterly incomprehensible without it, but that doesn't mean God is a cryptic cunt. You just have to stop assuming anyone can take up a Bible and read and understand Christianity. You can't, in my honest opinion. It's not easy-reading.

>>3647

>Why are our systems of morality less worthwhile than God's? Especially if his morality seems to be opposed to our happiness and well-being?

Our systems are largely the same. Try finding any nation whose laws vary wildly from the Ten Commandments and you'll realise there are none. Murder, theft, etc, are all considered crimes in 99% of the nations that have a law system in place, if not 100%.

I don't have an example of "God's morality" where it opposes our happiness. Especially not amongst the Ten Commandments.

>>3647

>Then worship of God isn't an obedience born out of respect or admiration. But instead simple fear. This only justifies God's nature through his use of power. I certainly don't agree that might makes right.

Well, it's very unlikely that things unfold this way. Many have imagined, or been exposed to, different explanations. Swedenborg says that Heaven and Hell are basically your natural destinations. Depending on how you behave, you'll feel better in one or the other. If you like to rape others, you'll go to Hell where you can rape others; the catch is that the others are also rapists, so they'll rape you too. In Heaven, you'll give gifts to others, because you liked doing so on earth, and the "catch", is that others will also give you gifts. Same principle as in Hell, but because you are not a selfish cunt, it actually benefits you too.

Don't think of it as God sending anyone anywhere. Nobody can act like a Christian solely to save their own ass and hope to get to Heaven this way, because Heaven doesn't function this way. Mercenary love isn't love at all. And one potential reason why God doesn't show up is precisely so nobody is forced to admit that God is real, or else the mercenary love scenario could become a mandatory reality for everybody.

Many Christians think Hell is more of a fortress than a prison, where people lock themselves away from love. CS Lewis was such a Christian, and he wrote that there are only two places where you're perfectly protected from love: Heaven and Hell.

>>3647

>However we do not think it is reasonable that a child be ordered to worship their parent or that a parent who never explains their actions and never responds to reasonable disagreement as being a good parent.

I think I see where you're going with this, but being a professional in education, I must tell you that this analogy is wrong.

Contrary to popular belief, young children need their parents to be absolute authorities that can't be questioned. (We're assuming the parents in question are normal people and not psychos, of course.)

A child needs to have a very clear "boss" so that he can trust that authority and not have to worry about the world too much. A parent who cannot do that will make his kid riddled with anxiety and the kid won't tolerate it for long. He will end up testing the parent's authority time and again, until the parent acts like the solid authority the child needs. Short of that, endless conflicts will take place, until the parent is basically done as an authority and becomes the object of the child's greatest scorn and resentment, for having failed to be a parent.

That said, to come back to God, you're still thinking in very tribal terms. God is your father, but as you have noticed, He doesn't come scold you every day. He doesn't even talk to you, He lets you be. You aren't a Hebrew man living in the desert and the future of the planet doesn't rest on you and your tribe's shoulders, therefore you don't have the same set of rules and not the same is expected of you. Hebrews were in charge in surviving to provide Christ down the line, so their parameters were different, their rules were different, drastically so. Christ is the New Covenant and the rules have changed, without the heart having really changed.

God doesn't need to force you to worship Him, that's why He doesn't even try, not in a vulgar way at any rate. My advice is to start from scratch and imagine God. Imagine, according to you, what God is, and what He thinks. At this point, it doesn't matter if you're right or wrong, it's about getting the idea. God is perfect, so try imagining a perfect God, according to you, just to get the idea. You'll be wrong on some things, we all are, but don't think of that. If that's too hard, imagine the most good person you can think of and give them superpowers, then think that God is infinitely better. Imagine.

Once you have your perfect God, you won't ask yourself whether He is worth worshipping or not, because He is God.

I'd also advise to use another verb. Worship is obviously tainted for you and doesn't mean to you what it means to us.

Try praying, as a way to connect with the source of all. Let your mind go blank. You'll find that it is a very natural thing to do, and possibly that you enjoy it quite a lot.

Let definitions aside for that moment, and just tune out of the world and into God.

And remember this, Christ never asked us to get a fully perfect understanding of everything, He asked for faith. Try understanding as much as you can, but keep in mind that we are very limited and no amount of knowledge will ever give us faith. Faith is trust, try trusting God. He is your God, not just ours.

I'll try and respond more in depth to some of the arguments in this thread later. I have to get on a train in a bit. I'll add that this thread has given me some much needed fresh perspective on the dilemma.

The main question I guess. Is how can we be sure that God is telling the truth? When the scripture says that God is perfect, is there anyway to know for sure? Can we verify that he is indeed perfect through his actions and teachings? The character of God seems to be that of a very petty, selfish, and egotistical being. You could counter that I have no conception of God's character since I am a created mortal and not perfect like him.

But that seems to imply that we can have no real knowledge of God. That we are just to take his word.

I'll use an example of where I find God's actions suspect. It's been said in this thread that hell is a choice, that God doesn't punish anyone for turning from him. But the choice here seems to be illusory. We are given the choice of the greatest reward imaginable versus the worst punishment. We aren't actually given the choice to be free from his judgement. To stay in our grave so to speak. We are being threatened under extreme violence to follow what he has decided is best. This doesn't seem to be a system created by a perfect being at all.

So again, how can we know that God is actually perfect?

I should probably add that I don't think the standards of good, evil, perfection, etc. Are dependent on God. We humans have created our own understanding of these concepts through our ability to observe and reason. For instance a definition of a good moral action might be an action that benefits the well being of another creature. It doesn't need be "what God says is good". Perfection means without flaw, it doesn't mean "God's nature". We can have working definitions of these terms without god.

>>3783

>The main question I guess. Is how can we be sure that God is telling the truth?

How can you be certain that the laws of physics will not invert and change from minute to minute? How can you be certain that the laws of logic will not mutate over time? How can you be certain of anything you take for granted as certain?

Because God is consistent, he has demonstrated it by giving us a natural world which runs consistently and is regulated by fundamental and immutable rules.

God can suspend those rules in the case of a miracle but miracles are not regular phenomena, they serve a very specific purpose in God's plan and relationship with His people and mankind as a whole.

God demonstrates his consitency and honesty by the fact that we can count that the sun will rise and the seasons will change.

> Can we verify that he is indeed perfect through his actions and teachings?

We can verify that he is perfect through the regular construction and behavior of the universe. We're not talking about God being precise to one million decimal places, we're talking precision and orchestration of mathematical paradigms beyond anything the brightest minds of men can even begin to fully and accurately explain.

> The character of God seems to be that of a very petty, selfish, and egotistical being.

If a human made the claims God does then yes that human would be those things. God however acts with perfect knowledge of reality, he acts with perfect knowledge of Himself and perfect knowledge of all people. He does not put himself on the Highest throne because he is an egomaniac, but because the only being which can sit on that throne is Him. God does not style himself a king, our very idea of kingship flows naturally out of our innate knowledge of God. human government is an imperfect metaphor of God rulership and governance of reality. Because we are made in the image of God we imitate His characteristics, when a human imitates them unlawfully and in direct competition, rather than in compliment, with God, that human is in sin because he is usurping God's role.

> But that seems to imply that we can have no real knowledge of God. That we are just to take his word.

If God communicating with man is not enough proof, then you simply do not have any standard of evidence, you are demanding God conform to you a created being whose every heart beat depends upon God's will that you live. It is the height of arrogance.

You are also again presupposing that any evidence can be brought forth that is independent of God's word and actions. Reality itself is a result of God's actions. You have nothing but his word for it that you are alive and breathing.

> . It's been said in this thread that hell is a choice, that God doesn't punish anyone for turning from him. But the choice here seems to be illusory.

I would agree with you, the issue of hell and free will is a contested one in Christianity. My, and the historic position of Christians is that Hell is the just and lawful punishment of sinners. Sin is a crime against the High King of all creation, we have ransacked the Kings castle, slaughtered His servants, we have put to death the Prince of the realm, desecrated the holy places and have chosen to follow after pretender kings and false religions. This cosmic and transcendental treason demands punishment, justice must be fulfilled.

> We are given the choice of the greatest reward imaginable versus the worst punishment. We aren't actually given the choice to be free from his judgement.

He made you, you do not get a say in why you are made, you are made for the purpose that you are made. You can chose to remain in rebellion to the rightful King or you can chose to bend you knee and submit to His righteous judgement and throw yourself at His mercy. God will not be mocked, you do not get to opt out of justice.

You would not say it is right for a serial rapist to be given the choice to not be held accountable to the law of the land.

> We are being threatened under extreme violence to follow what he has decided is best.

He defines the rules of the game, you break the rules you receive penalty. Your entire objection isn't the God's character is suspect it is that you do not want God to be God, you want to follow your own rules, to have the right to set up your kingdom on the Kings land. It is an absurd request and one which no earthly king would be respected for granting.

> This doesn't seem to be a system created by a perfect being at all.

Are you a perfect being? If not then by what claim can you make to be able to criticize what is and is not perfect?

>>3783

> I should probably add that I don't think the standards of good, evil, perfection, etc. Are dependent on God.

The brain matter you use to contemplate them is, the sustenance you consume to provide energy to that matter is, the air you breathe to give oxygen to that matter is, the gravity and air-pressure that keeps your body in composition is, the fundamental laws of physics which cause matter to have gravity is.

All things are dependent upon God's direct will for it to exist.

> We humans have created our own understanding of these concepts through our ability to observe and reason.

Because we are made in the image of God and reflect His characteristics. We can reason because God reasons, we can know Good and Evil because God knows Good and Evil (though God created man in a state without this knowledge so that they would be perfectly obedient to Him, that they do not fall into sin and thus deserve punishment therefor).

> For instance a definition of a good moral action might be an action that benefits the well being of another creature.

And by what authority can you claim that this is a valid or reasonable definition for what is good? Where did you get that authority? Why should anybody recognize that authority. Why are you the perfect arbiter of Good and Evil? How do we know your character isn't suspect?

You did not solve the problem of God being the law-giver you simply erected yourself as the law-giver and every question you have of God is now a question you must now account for. You have made yourself God in this situation, a claim that I can contest by smashing your head in with a rock, am I then the law-giver when you pass?

> We can have working definitions of these terms without god.

You cannot have a brain which can construct conceptions without God.

You said at the outset we were assuming that the Christian God exists. You are demonstrating that you had no intention of actually holding to this assumption. You are assuming your conclusion, as I said earlier, and then arguing from it. You speak highly of human reason but your demonstration of it is wanting.

>>3649

>There is no rational way for a creature to question his creator

>God does not owe us anything

>your assumption that humans are rational is skewed

>>3650

>God's thinking is more thoughtful than ours

>>3651

>You don't understand just how wretched you are because you have no objective purity to compare it to

>>3770

>I don't have an example of "God's morality" where it opposes our happiness

>>3786

>You cannot have a brain which can construct conceptions without God

So that's how it is.

That may have been more convincing if there was something to call upon, instead of Must Be's. If human rationality in nonexistent, if there is something to "gain" by obeying, if worship is "natural," and if human laws are more worthy of smashing, then there would be be something to point at these; and there would not be any abstract thought, nor people who don't want such "gain," nor change from "nature," nor impossible requests from religion.

Just focus on getting to heaven since salvation isn't guaranteed

Colossians 2:8

Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ

>>4036

>Just focus on getting to heaven

Just focus on living a good life, as that's how you get to Heaven. Focusing on saving your ass may have dire results, since it's a selfish motive and those who do that fail to understand the message of Christianity. Mercenary love is considered a sin by the Catholic Church, and I'd agree with that. It's essentially the idea that you can force God's hand by having acted well on earth. It wouldn't work. Deeds alone don't prove your faith, as you can do good deeds to show off to others, and you can do good deeds to try to make God accept you. The same deed done by two different men can be completely different: anon A gives to a beggar to seduce the lady he's dating, to show her how generous he is and how wealthy he is, in order to sleep with her; anon B gives to a beggar because he believes in helping the beggar. It's not always this clearly cut, but if, when giving to a beggar, your mind is set on Heaven, rather than on helping said beggar, you may not reach your goal.

I believe this is a prime reason why God makes sure we can only believe in Him on faith and not have to face obvious evidence of His existence, which would condemn us all to mercenary love.

Vid related.

>>4034

>That may have been more convincing if there was something to call upon, instead of Must Be's. If human rationality in nonexistent, if there is something to "gain" by obeying, if worship is "natural," and if human laws are more worthy of smashing, then there would be be something to point at these; and there would not be any abstract thought, nor people who don't want such "gain," nor change from "nature," nor impossible requests from religion.

I'm not sure I fully grasp the bulk of your ideas here, and I'm probably not the only one in this situation, hence the silence that responded to your post.

I don't believe that humans are fully irrational, I believe in limited rationality. I believe logic to be infallible, but as humans, we frequently fail to use it in infallible ways, simply because we use various parameters for various reasons, and some reasons count more than others to us, which makes it so that it won't work for everyone.

I do believe something pushes us to God, and that would be God Himself.

I admit I don't understand your post enough to say much more. I fail to see if there's one general idea in your post that you want answers to, or if it's a list of independent points.

Perhaps you could rephrase?

>>4056

By "to call upon" I mean that in order to appeal to something like love or loyalty, God must first earn it.

By quoting the word "gain," I mean that it makes little sense to talk about it spiritually like it's the same word that applies to speed or volume - it's not unidimensional and cannot be taken in a single measurement; change is a better word.

Appeals to nature don't work: it was not properly defined and never will be.

The "impossible requests" refers to the ones who would not believe even a mercenary belief, and yet God asks them anyway.

You mentioned God pushes us to himself; all ideas pull towards themselves.

>>4073

>God must first earn it.

I see. No parent expect to have to earn one's baby's respect, because a baby can't even properly understand what it would mean, much less take the steps to show respect.

If you think God owes us something that He hasn't given us already, I can see why this would be a problem. I guess, for most Christians, a God that owes us is no God, because it would imply wrong-doing or debt on His part.

>By quoting the word "gain," I mean that it makes little sense to talk about it spiritually like it's the same word that applies to speed or volume - it's not unidimensional and cannot be taken in a single measurement; change is a better word.

Oh OK, gain, as on my guitar amp.

>The "impossible requests" refers to the ones who would not believe even a mercenary belief, and yet God asks them anyway.

Do you mean God's impossible request to humans?

>You mentioned God pushes us to himself; all ideas pull towards themselves.

God isn't just an idea to believers. It's an idea that we use about a reality (from out point of view). I meant God actively calls to all of us, not that the idea is attractive on its own (even though it is that too).

>>4074

>a baby can't properly understand

You just said man does have rationality. In any case, babies do things are not able to question what they are doing in the first place. But since we can, God does owe us the same thing a parent does, for the same reason: nothing. The debt cannot be repaid. A definite solution to problem of evil or something would be nice.

>impossible request

What do you mean?

>actively calls

They all do.

>>4128

>You just said man does have rationality.

Yes. A man does, in most cases. A baby is not a man. The rationality of a baby is a whole different ball game. Besides, being a rational being doesn't guarantee proper understanding anyway.

>God does owe us the same thing a parent does, for the same reason: nothing.

How could God owe you anything? Put it in financial terms: God has all the money, you have none of the money. He gives you some so you can finance some project, but His face is on every bill and every coin, it's not even a loan, He just lets you use His money for some time, and after that time, He takes it all back, with whatever more you made.

There's no way He can owe you any money.

The problem of evil is solvable in many ways, take your pick.

1. Evil doesn't exist, is an absence of good, like darkness is an absence of light;

2. God let evil exist as the price of freedom, to be truly free, evil must be an option for free humans; no game can be won if it can't be lost;

3. evil and pain are indicators that help you be on the right path: physical pain helps you to protect your body, moral pain, evil, and the understanding of it, helps you stay on the right moral path, (think of people who can't feel pain, it's a medical condition: they're always endangering themselves because they never know when they're cut, infected, or even chewing the inside of their cheeks by accident, or when they fish out eggs from boiling water, and they don't even know if it's too hot or not, etc);

There are more, but it's potentially the most discussed theological topic in history. It's no problem in Christianity though, since we're supposed to live in a fallen world, consumed by evil.

The real problem isn't "evil", the real problem is humans and their lack of modesty. We think our pain is very important. We often don't realise that the pain a single human being has felt (let's imagine he has suffered the most of all humans), well that's the most pain there can be in the universe. Pain doesn't add up, it's subjective, for one person.

Things are much less evil if, along with the idea that God exists, you ALSO take what this implies. God lets humans handle their shit so badly that many of them starve to death. Sounds really bad to us, but to God it's something like this:

>be born in African country

>no food

>die of starvation at 3

>enter Heaven forever!

Starvation pain is surely not fun to go through, but in the grand scheme of things, it's just pain. A human lifetime is nothing compared to an eternity in Heaven, you can't take that away from the equation if you're going to think about the coexistence of God and what we call evil (which doesn't exist without the notion of pain, in a form or another).

If you have further questions, I'll do my best.

>>4133 checked

>doesn't guarantee understanding

It's worth a try. As it is, it looks like someone's got the cards close to his chest, and is bluffing that one of them is the "Made those who could understand instead."

>money

Do you always resort to comparisons? They never work; even when they do, it's not as good as explaining things directly. I'm not sure what money it's supposed to represent.

Since you mention it later, I guess it's about good and bad as they they relate to the individual (instantiated for you as pleasure and pain). The two are not like revenue and expenditure: there is no p = r - e. They are more like a guitar amp: if you turn it up, then down it's not the same as if you never turned it on again.

>problem of evil

The point was that His would have been nice, as principle.

>evil doesn't real

>possibility

>evil

>not good

>price of freedom

>implying the implications of that kind of freedom are good

>We think our pain is very important

I don't know what "very important" is, but you seem to think that an arbitrary large amount of pain plus infinite pleasure equals 5/5 would recommend. What did you mean by those words?

>pain doesn't add up, it's subjective

I never meant that the idea that good and bad apply to a certain person is vital. Humans are an example. If it's convenient, you may apply good and bad exclusively to the cosmos.

>lets humans handle their shit so badly

How nice, to dodge responsibility forever.

>Starvation pain … is just a pain

And 50k is JUST alimony. You should fuck someone's shit up, then pay him back later so it's okay.

t. Afton

>he think heaven is a good place

>evil

>can't exist without pain

Of course it does, just apply it to something which doesn't feel pain.

This where you say that evil doesn't real at all? If so, do it with a straight face for me.

Option two: say that the amount of good in heaven tends towards infinity in heaven, while the amount of evil is static. Then you stay under the spell of the plus and minus of real numbers. How come no one thinks of good/bad as a non-ordered set of possible outcomes, but which does have operations? I know it's incorrect, but it's nothing by christfag standards.

Or you can agree with me when I say that rocks furfill a better source of morality - that they are more godly.

>>4186

fug I meant that the operation would have to be bijective and the set is infinite, so it has to be something general

>>4186

>>4187

fug, ignore the spoilers

>>4186

>it's not as good as explaining things directly.

It very often helps people understand because it's about using a system that people already understand to draw similarities with another system which they don't. I'm a teacher, I explain things to people 8 hours a day, trust me that it works. You just have to understand that not everything in the comparison is going to work out, and that doesn't matter, only the point one is trying to illustrate actually matters.

Money was supposed to represent everything, since God gave you everything you have and are, basically.

>I don't know what "very important" is, but you seem to think that an arbitrary large amount of pain plus infinite pleasure equals 5/5 would recommend. What did you mean by those words?

I honestly don't understand what your first sentence means. As to my meaning, we think our pain matters, as in, it's an argument to suggest God is not good. I'm only pointing out that it makes no sense. I've also stated that the maximum amount of pain a person can feel is the maximum amount of pain that can be felt in the whole universe, since pain doesn't add up, since it's a subjective thing (by subjective, I mean it's a thing to be felt by one person, we don't share pain).

>I never meant that the idea that good and bad apply to a certain person is vital. Humans are an example. If it's convenient, you may apply good and bad exclusively to the cosmos.

This wasn't about good and bad, though. At all.

>How nice, to dodge responsibility forever.

Letting others be responsible isn't dodging responsibility, certainly not forever. If God does judge us after death, He keeps His responsibility.

>And 50k is JUST alimony. You should fuck someone's shit up, then pay him back later so it's okay.

I don't see where the argument is in this.

>Of course it does, just apply it to something which doesn't feel pain.

Uh? I think we're speaking at vastly different levels here. If you try to define evil, sooner or later, you will run into pain.

>This where you say that evil doesn't real at all?

Uh? Not at all.

>If so, do it with a straight face for me.

Considering you don't seem to understand much of what I'm saying, straight face or not wouldn't change anything. That said, I don't appreciate you insulting me after you misunderstood half of what I said. Don't jump to conclusions so fast.

>>4186

>say that the amount of good in heaven

How do you even know that this is quantifiable? I wouldn't so easily assume anything about a place where time and space aren't as they are here.

I have no idea what you're suggesting after that.

>Or you can agree with me when I say that rocks furfill a better source of morality - that they are more godly.

Of course not, since rocks didn't create the universe.

Honestly, sir, I don't know if you're not entirely sober or really prefer to read your own thoughts in other people's words but conversing with you is an odd experience. Half the time you don't seem to get the ideas I try to convey and on the other hand, I often have no idea what you're responding to or why.

We should try singling out points for clarity, that way, if anything goes wrong, we can take the time to specify.

>>4187

>bijective

>set, infinite

You are certainly aware that not everyone will know what you're actually talking about here, right? I, for one, am not familiar with these terms.

>>4458

>money

Then consider, in this methapor, than suppose I don't think money is a good idea and would prefer either some other economic system or none at all.

>The maximum amount of pain

Why is the fact that there is maximum to it important? Surely you think causing pain to two people is worse than causing it to one, all think being equal.

>50k

That's an hypothetical example in which Afton thinks that if taking 50k/month from Fraser, his actions are neutral if he gives it back at some point. The point was that only someone as evil as Afton would think such a thing.

>If you try to define evil, sooner or later, you will run into pain.

Consider a worldview in which there is only one good: all rocks must travel 30 miles through space relative to the Sun. The only evil is for them to be broken down before they complete that mission.

Yes, pain may be considered as a possible source of good or bad in this worldview. It would be discarded, since it does not affect rocks directly.

>Rocks didn't create the universe

Is God good because He created the Universe?

>>3647

>I certainly don't agree that might makes right.

when someone more powerful than you DOES believe in might makes right, it really doesn't fucking matter what you agree with, does it?

>>6570

That isn't what Christians believe though. They don't say "obey God because he's powerful". They say "God is love" among other things. If it's true that God is only worth listening to because he can crush you with his thumb then we really do live in, as Hitchens called it, a celestial dictatorship.

>>6593

>>6593

>celestial dictatorship.

What do you think the kingdom of God is? Of course it is a dictatorship.

>inb4 ameritard muh dumbmobcrazy and freedumbs

>>6594

Celestial Monarchy sounds better. Same thing, obviously, dictatorship is just meant to imply bad life conditions and abuses of power, which is definitely not what God is all about.

Assuming that's what he meant.

>>6595

I like how celestial monarchy sounds like.

>>6595

> dictatorship is just meant to imply bad life conditions and abuses of power

That's freemasoic propaganda. In the past it was just a neutral term for absolute power of an individual. See Roman early statehood.

A tyranny was also not a bad thing. It was just a term for a single ruler in a polis city state that by "constitution" should have another form of government, like an oligarchy or democracy.

The badmouthing of this one started however already with an infamous tyrann of Syracuse :-)

>>6573

>free will

free will allows one to choose either sin, or obedience to God. cain considered in his own mind as to what was right and wrong when he killed Abel.

degenerates consider what is right and wrong when they rationalise abortion and then go ahead and kill a child.

just because you can consider sinning and indeed choose sin doesn't make doing so any more right.

>>6593

they also say "fear god".

>>6634

> Qatar is fine

You dont like football dont you? They are literally using old style slaves right now to build stadiums. More than 3000 slaves have died so far

>>6636

And although the US have the biggest foreign military base in the world there they do not intervene. They do not even complain or pressure them to do anything.

The United States of America bring "democracy" in mysterious ways, only to non-allied competing nations it seems.

>>6643

oh please. If they would invade people will say "muh oil", if they dont they will say "muh oil"