Is gnosticism the only good answer to the Problem of Evil?

Is gnosticism the only good answer to the Problem of Evil?

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    BLACKED

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Your mind has literally been Blacked. Your head is getting fucked by an imaginary BBC twenty-four/seven.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Hot

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        stop making me horny

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Kill yourself

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Hey you mentioned the british broadcast channel not him

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Yes

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      mutts law

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      >po lil lamb ain't gon walk so good no mo

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      literally my thoughts when i first saw the thumbnail

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        >these are the people telling you evil doesn't exist

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          If there exists a platonic ideal of good (bbc splitting my pink racist ass in half), then logically there must be a dark counterpart

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          i think they're trying to convince us that evil is actually good.
          That the goal is to become a wolf (a murderous psychopath) and prey upon the lambs (non-psychopaths).

          but yea, they're clearly evil and possessed by demons.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            They conflate goodness with power because they need to believe the cosmic BDC is fucking them in their best interest.

            • 7 days ago
              Anonymous

              it's why the israelites (and Muslims too for that matter, prolly mainstream christianity too) think that if they win a battle or a war, it means God is on their side. And that if they lose, it means God isn't.
              So in order to win a war, that usually translates to you having to be absolutely ruthless and bloodthirsty, and by becoming so they begin to win more battles and wars, which means (in their psychopathic theology) that God wants them to become psychopaths.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                It is the God of "successful predators" to borrow Sloterdijk's turn of phrase. Which is another way of saying it is the God of differentials (a Phallus).

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Which is another way of saying it is the God of differentials (a Phallus).
                can you expand on that part? I don't get it, though i know there are many religious practices that basically worship the phallus, from all over the world.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                The Phallus to be a Phallus has to posit a Ground beneath it. To be a winner, there need to be losers, and to be a shark there need to be guppies. It feels good to be alive because of death. Gods need sacrifice. Hence the lamb in the OP.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                ah okay, i get it now, thanks.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >So in order to win a war, that usually translates to you having to be absolutely ruthless and bloodthirsty
                The good news is that goodness wins. Jesus sat above the ruthlessness of Rome and dictated its future through goodness.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >the good news is that goodness wins.
                i honestly don't know about that.
                So far all i've seen is evil murdering any good, then co-opting that good into itself, but perverting it and only superficially taking in the good.
                For example, Catholicism, how they claim to be followers of Jesus, but then don't act like Jesus at all.
                The only "winning" going on are the extremely rare few that escape the prison-matrix, but the rest just get recycled over and over and over.

                So unless you're suggesting that the Pleroma is one day going to invade the Demiurge's realm (earth) and eradicate all the evil (i.e. all the governments of the world and the secret societies)... i just don't see goodness winning.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >For example, Catholicism, how they claim to be followers of Jesus, but then don't act like Jesus at all.
                And are losing because of it. History shows all these cycles over and over. You're falling into the pattern of the spoiled prince or whatever. You don't appreciate what goodness has given you and only see the decay which you're part of because you don't appreciate the things that built the foundations.
                >i just don't see goodness winning
                A problem with perception not goodness.

                >to accept a claim you first have to understand it.
                >much of what i argued i don't even "accept", i'm just arguing to argue.
                oh okay, you're just being a pilpul israelite.
                you can fuck off now 🙂

                If you don't understand the difference between understanding a perspective and accepting it as absolute truth that demonstrates how programmed you are. You don't think, you just act out conditioning, like the worst examples of people acting based on religious dogma.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                not even gonna waste my time giving you an answer beyond this short message informing you so. 🙂

                you're just arguing to argue.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >you're just arguing to argue.
                You were the one claiming before you were just asking questions, as in rhetorically exploring things. When it turns out the conclusion you desperately and dogmatically need doesn't follow you just forget anything ever happened. The atheistic consumerist dogma must be preserved and promoted at all costs. Actually thinking is just "pilpul" and "arguing for arguments sake".

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                i was just asking a question. And you satisfied my curiosity. What else is there to discuss?
                you think blood sacrifice is good, i don't. Conversation is done 🙂

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >i was just asking a question
                Nope, you don't know how. You're completely and utterly programmed. The worst, most dogmatic religious zealot in history.
                Look at this post

                >to accept a claim you first have to understand it.
                >much of what i argued i don't even "accept", i'm just arguing to argue.
                oh okay, you're just being a pilpul israelite.
                you can fuck off now 🙂

                The derangement needed to not grasp this distinction is beyond anything you can attribute to those that previously held the title of worst religious zealots in history.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                the conversations over, my sweet summer israelite. 🙂

                Blood sacrifice is demonic.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                There never was a conversation. You don't know how to engage in a conversation about anything. Your mind is completely ossified by propaganda. You will probably never understand anything in your life and keep blaming external things for your utter incompetence on every level.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                Conversation is over. 🙂

                Blood sacrifice is demonic.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Blood sacrifice is demonic.
                I've had interesting conversations about that with people but you don't know what any of it means and don't want to know.
                I think it is demonic but when you use the word "demonic" it just means "bad poopoo stuff".

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >i agree that blood sacrifice is demonic.
                thanks, glad we can agree that the conversation is over, and that blood sacrifice is demonic.

                was nice chatting with you, bye 🙂

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                That's because we're in the dawn of the Kali Yuga or something like it as in Thoth's prophecy
                Don't worry, by all measures it'll get worse

                I think your problem is that you're on the level of thinking it's secret societies or agents at all doing this and not systems
                The process which we call capitalism is related to the process of technological advancement, and it in turn is an evolutionary process like any other, unconcerned with human wellbeing
                Read Kaczynski and possibly Evola

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                the whole idea of Yugas at all is evil. Just because some yugas are more pleasant than others, doesn't mean that the whole thing isn't evil.
                The Stoics also believed in the idea of yugas, "the Great Conflagration" i think is the term they used, and that the process just keeps repeating for eternity. And they justify ANY evil (no matter how depraved) by reassuring themselves that "it's all part of the Demiurge's plan" and that "someone has to play the role of psychopathic villain, the world NEEDS villains to enact Change, so it may as well be me/us, and we should just embrace our destiny and be evil".

                It's why israelites (or at least, the pharisaic israelites, which is the vast majority) are essentially stoics, just as Josephus (a pharisaic israelite, btw) said.

                The only escape seems to be gnosticism or gnosticism-based teachings. To completely remove oneself from the "system" and not play the game.

                And the thing about secret societies is because they're *always* a part of government, whether at the local level or the macro level. It's all about being at the top of the "system". To get rid of the governments is synonymous with getting rid of secret societies.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >the whole idea of Yugas at all is evil
                I kind of disagree with you there
                I'll put it this way: if go all the way down to the very bottom of reality in your investigation, you will find that to choose morality is to choose pain
                And not just any kind of pain, but needless pain, unjustified pain
                It is the very essence of the stoic ideal, otherwise you'd just be an epicurean

                A lot of people test philosophy facing toward the past, but philosophy becomes much clearer when facing toward the future
                For example once you come to the conclusion as modern people have, that nothing verifiably means anything, well that's just fine and dandy in our current day because basically nothing changes; your interest is still fully aligned with being a good person, making friends, having a community, etc - because you can't change any of it
                But what happens in the future when you DO have the option?
                You can get in the VR infinite euphoria pod, let a headless AI defend humanity and your pod from all natural threats and live a perfect life, eradicating evil except where it makes the game fun
                But then you have eliminated the possibly of dignity, of freedom, of real choice of
                Because like a heroin addict without the consequences of real life or death you would never choose to get out of the pod
                The only choice is to never get in, or to choose pain from the beginning

                As for the secret societies and organizations bit, they are always part of systems but almost never fully control them
                In the purest form and in my own experience, markets, there are always whales and market makers but the whales are fighting eachother and you can verifiably see this because whales lose to other whales, or the market in general

                It has been shown that no one can predict better than chance the market without insider information like Nancy Pelosi, and there is no insider information on reality, no one knows what will happen next or if their plans will work

                That's why I implore you to read Kaczynski, particularly his more comprehensive book, Anti Tech Revolution; Why and How

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >unjustified, needless pain is actually good.
                look, i'm not buying what you're selling. I'm not saying i'm a gnostic, but maybe i am and just don't know it. But gnostics are definitely onto something.
                And stoics/israelites (because as Josephus said, they're the same thing essentially) are absolutely batshit insane and i don't ascribe to their beliefs.

                >i implore you to read Kaczynski
                i've read some of his stuff. But nothing he says is going to change my mind that Judaism/Stoicism/etc. is evil. As Copleston noted, the reason stoicism was so popular among the *obscenely* wealthy and powerful, was because it was the only philosophical system that condoned obscene wealth and psychopathic behavior.
                >the world is a balanced system, and just as there are sheep and cows on one side of the balance, the world also needs wolves and vultures on the other side of the balance to keep everything perfectly balanced.
                No amount of pretty speech will alter the fact that what they're doing is preying on other humans and trying to justify it as "necessary to maintain the balance".

                It's difficult to blame gnostics for wanting to extricate themselves from such a system that ONLY favors the demonic and criminal.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >So unless you're suggesting that the Pleroma is one day going to invade the Demiurge's realm (earth) and eradicate all the evil
                This is ultimately what Gnosticism states will happen at the conclusion of things, either that or (according to the Valentinian school) the material world just collapses in on itself due to its own flawed construction and burns away into nothingness

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                Muslims think God is on their side either way. If they win it's a favor from God, and if they lose it's a trial from God.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                which is exactly what the israelites believe.
                you're just restating what i said, so... thanks for that i guess?

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                No, you said the israelites (and Muslims) think if they lose God isn't on their side. I said that Muslims think God is on their side whether they win or lose. "Grieve not; truly God is with us." (Quran 9:40)

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >God isn't on their side.
                okay, i'll rephrase it then, they always believe God is on their side, but that God can still be "mad" at them.
                that's what i meant by "not on their side". But you're right, it wasn't worded properly.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                No, you said the israelites (and Muslims) think if they lose God isn't on their side. I said that Muslims think God is on their side whether they win or lose. "Grieve not; truly God is with us." (Quran 9:40)

                but this idea that God gets mad at them for not being psychopathic (since only by being psychopathic will they "win", no matter the cost), is pretty terrifying.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                This idea is not present in Islam as far as I know. Even warfare in Islam has its etiquette and you can't just psychotically do anything to win.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >you can't just psychotically do anything to win
                I think that's still rooted in practicality, as in if you truly follow God you will win and be rewarded. The psychopath doesn't "win" anything really despite everyone else losing.
                Job addresses all this and says this view is false. You can't rely on rewards and you may suffer despite doing everything right.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                Rewards in Islam are primarily given in the afterlife. "This life of the world is but a pastime and a game. Lo! the home of the Hereafter - that is Life, if they but knew" (Quran 29:64). I think you are making a mistake by reading the israeli worldliness into the whole Abrahamic tradition.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >israeli worldliness
                Braindead. Like calling the world "dualistic". It may be muslims that are braindead and not you but either way that's what it is.
                Job applies metaphysically, like your actions in this "material" world do in fact have symbolic meaning and a higher context they rest in.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                I could not care any less of what you think of my brain, or the brains of the Muslims for that matter. I have said that you are simply wrong. In Islam, your actions in this world directly determine your state of being in the hereafter. It may be that you are a poor man, you lose everything, become enslaved, etc. and still go to heaven if you believe in Islam and abide by its ethics; or it could be that you win all your battles and have a very comfortable life and yet go to hell by not abiding by Islam. The point being virtue, piety and faith are much more important in Islam than whether you lose or win.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >The point being virtue, piety and faith are much more important in Islam than whether you lose or win.
                In this post you're still saying that they're seeking reward, trying to "win" by being virtuous. You create a temporal separation between the act and the result as if it's a physical, material process happening that you can predict.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >i think you're making a mistake by reading israeli worldliness into Islam
                Islam is just as worldly and materialistic as Judaism. Islam's idea of an afterlife is to have a harem, just like they can have in real life.
                Islam is a joke.

                At least Christianity (or parts of it that haven't been completely corrupted by materialists) makes some sense. Most people don't even bother bringing up Islam because it's that much of a joke, it's too derivative of Judaism.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                Sorry anon. Retarded take.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                you only say that because you're Muslim and if you don't defend Islam you'll be decapitated.
                We understand the situation you're in, don't worry. Blink three times if the Muslims are in the room with you right now.

                My favorite Islamic teaching is the one where Mohamed says you'll go to hell if you get even a single drop of urine (piss) on you while peeing, and that this is why you have to pee while sitting down, to avoid splash-back.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                I in fact converted to Islam after years of research. Your favorite part of Islam is just a product of your imagination as your whole understanding of Islam. I have nothing more to say to you.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                https://www.abuaminaelias.com/dailyhadithonline/2019/05/13/prophet-not-urinate-standing/
                >Aisha reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, would not urinate unless he was sitting.
                >Al-Tirmidhi said, “The prohibition of urinating while standing means it is a matter of etiquette and not absolute forbiddance.”
                >the prohibition
                >PROHIBITION
                i.e. Mohamed wanted others to pee while sitting too.

                Way to prove you don't even know your own materialistic religion that you "studied for years". Have fun worshiping the Demiurge

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >cites Aisha
                You have no clue, do you?

                >The point being virtue, piety and faith are much more important in Islam than whether you lose or win.
                In this post you're still saying that they're seeking reward, trying to "win" by being virtuous. You create a temporal separation between the act and the result as if it's a physical, material process happening that you can predict.

                In the beginning stages piety is done for heavenly reward, but as you progress in your faith you ought to do it only to please God without having any expectation.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                This is more like Job but not what you presented so far.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >cites Aisha
                so wait, you're saying a 9 year old girl that gets raped by Mohamed doesn't even earn the right to talk about her husband?

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Have fun worshiping the Demiurge

                >headcanon
                hm.

                Well if you deny points like that why on Gaias Earth do you still call yourself a (whatever sect)?

                [...]
                Gods teeth, boy. Demiurge comes from Demos_Ourgos meaning "politcal impulse", it's an obvious allegory taken literally by stupid people centuries after the fact, it's not a real creature who lives under the ground nor ever was.

                [...]
                Well since you didn't reply with counter-arguments to my refutations of your position,
                >summ: we should let criminals rob us, we shouldn't stop them, we should be pathetic in order to arouse the help of passersby to stop them for us!*
                all my refutations stand.

                *note to reader; this is not even an exaggeration.

                (You)
                >Demos_Ourgos meaning "politcal impulse"

                This bit is actually true; they obviously don't "believe" xyz is God; they have political ambitions or seek some social-politics as the objective. Not anything Godly or actually 'good'.

                ed. we could call this 'ambition' Mithyvata ("wrong belief") as the Hindus put it.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Demiurge = political impulse
                the interesting thing that defines gnostic sects is how non-political they are. Every other religion immediately seeks to unite itself with government (whichever form that gov't takes) and seeks to establish itself as the "one true religion" and then persecute other religions with the help of the gov't, and in return the gov't is strengthened too.
                but gnosticism is more about a withdrawal from political life, it's more akin to taoism in that respect; just fucking off to a forest and living your life in peace.

                But to governments (and therefore, to demiurgic religions too) this sort of non-political belief system is harmful to itself, since politics/gov't requires "fuel" so to speak, in order to operate. It *needs* people to be involved, whether that be just to fight and die/kill in wars, or to rule over others, or even just leading a "normal" life and giving birth to lots of children that can then be used by gov't's for wars, or just more taxes.

                That's why gov't's and demiurgic religions always persecute gnostics so heavily (even the taoists were heavily persecuted by Confucionists). They can't just leave gnostics alone and in peace, because gnosticism essentially depletes the potential power of a demiurgic gov't/religion, and these people are obsessed with power.

                It's why even centuries after the genocide of the gnostics, you'll still see extreme anti-gnostic animosity from people in gnostic threads. As if gnosticism is somehow a "threat".

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he was God.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                In Islam God's anger doesn't necessarily present itself in the worldly life. In fact the Quran says God sometimes gives wealth and power to individuals as a trial, and that is why you see ungodly men in positions of power. They lose sight of God the more they amass worldly fortune, and fair way worse in the Hereafter because of it.

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          Your mind has literally been Blacked. Your head is getting fucked by an imaginary BBC twenty-four/seven.

          Of course the israelite would say that.

          asylum

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      Exemplifies all Christian imagery

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      NIGGED*

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      Of course the israelite would say that.

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      y-y-yaldabaoth?

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      Hot

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    The demiurge is a human invention.

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    hoe is evil a capital P problem?

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Problem of evil is nonsense. It can easily be beaten by moral relativism. Humans are fallible don’t matter what we think about morals. God is infallible what he says about morals and goes and if he says he’s benevolent then he is benevolent you literally can’t argue against this.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Euthyphro Dilemma. Start with the Greeks.

      Evil being unreal is better

      Grow up.

      Children.

      No, this guy's answer is the only good one.

      "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."

      Reddit.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >Children.
        why though? Are you not able to seriously engage with or refute that position beyond name-calling? That's a hint that it's correct

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          "Grow up" and "evil don't real" are not arguments. All they deserve is a pat on the head and a lollipop.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >"Grow up" and "evil don't real" are not arguments.
            In order to prove that the problem of evil is a serious problem that refutes or presents trouble for any school of thought or doctrine it would first have to be proved that evil exists; which nobody ever does; so it can be dismissed easily!

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              The problem of evil stems from a contradiction between God's omnipotence/omnibenevolence and the reality of suffering. Evil is that which causes suffering.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >contradiction between God's omnipotence/omnibenevolence and
                Easy-peasy. There is no god. Problem solved.

                >the reality of suffering
                Suffering is your default self-preservation mechanism. "Don't stick your hand into fire, bitch!"

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Lol this. The problem of evil is only a problem if you assume a benevolent God that is good

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >The problem of evil stems from a contradiction between God's omnipotence/omnibenevolence and the reality of suffering.
                the moral status we assign to suffering is subjective; in certain contexts suffering can be seen as a good thing etc; so there is no contradiction at all there
                >The Evil is that which causes suffering.
                you can try to fallibly infer that but it does not prove that evil actually exists

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                We're talking about gratuitous suffering.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >We're talking about gratuitous
                determining what is gratuitous is once again entirely subjective and you are right back where you started

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Dying an agonizing death from pancreatic cancer is soulmaking bro
                Just stop it. You're not intelligent or insightful.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                an agonizing death from pancreatic cancer is soulmaking bro
                I never said it was 'soul-making' but that determining what is gratuitous is entirely subjective which is true. Can you disprove that this death from cancer wasn't just the karmic fruit of something that this person had done in previous lives and thus that it wasnt entirely justified? If this was the case then it would not be gratuitous but justified. You cannot prove this and so you cannot prove that any suffering is actually gratuitive and so that goes out the window as something that supposedly proves evil exists
                >but t-tha'ts a fringe theory that has nothing to do wit-
                It's actually one of the most common beliefs in Human cultures across tine and space; you wont convince anyone by skirting around it when discussing the purported ""issue"" of evil

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Complete twaddle. We're not talking about Hindu notions of karma, we're talking about the Problem of Evil as it is understood in Christian and gnostic theologies.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >We're not talking about Hindu notions of karma, we're talking about the Problem of Evil as it is understood in Christian and gnostic theologies.
                This is a silly response; both because that was not specified in the OP's post and also because if the Hindu answer to the problem of evil is correct then Gnosticism is not the only good answer to the "Problem of Evil" and you are just arbitrarily trying to limit the bounds of the discussion to suit your own ideological preferences which is not a good guide to the truth; its just begging the question

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                There is no Problem of Evil proper in Hinduism because suffering does not contradict some allegedly omnibenevolent design. You don't have the faintest clue of the contexts in which these problems occur.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >There is no Problem of Evil proper in Hinduism because suffering does not contradict some allegedly omnibenevolent design
                Then why does each Vedanta commentator on the Brahma Sutras take care to explain that it shows that God is not evil because evil results accrue from our own karma and not because of God? Certain schools of Hinduism do say God is omnibenevolent while other schools say good and evil are unreal imagined dualities; both of these schools say that what we consider as evil accrues from our own karma. In any case it remains true that if the Hindu answer to the problem of evil is correct then its not true whatsoever that the gnostic answer is the only correct one; since its not just a question discussed in Christianity but a pan-religious topic of discussion

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                You're correct it is pan-religious. The Zoroastrians have a Problem of Evil, too, of course. Hinduism has more properly a Problem of Ignorance.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Hinduism has more properly a Problem of Ignorance.
                It's not a moral problem if no ultimate moral status is assigned to ignorance. The reason why there is ignorance is just that it's God's nature to cast or project it; either automatically or as part of lila (sport) according to various schools

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >gratuitous suffering

                1. You can ask "What does 'table' mean?". You'll get an answer.
                2. You can ask "What does 't' in 'table' mean?". You'll get shit.
                3. You can ask "Do the green ideas sleep furiously?". That doesn't make any sense.

                Your problem with "the Problem of Evil" is that it belongs to the 2-3 category. You keep asking some meaningless gibberish, and perceive your inability to get an answer as some profound enigma that needs to be cracked and solved.
                The answer is simple: your default self-preservation mechanism

                >contradiction between God's omnipotence/omnibenevolence and
                Easy-peasy. There is no god. Problem solved.

                >the reality of suffering
                Suffering is your default self-preservation mechanism. "Don't stick your hand into fire, bitch!"

                is exaptated to solve something it was never meant to solve. The same heuristics that helped you in one environment, suddenly start to backfire in another one.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Twaddle. Touch grass. This board is getting exponentially worse by the day

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                My bad, I mistook you for someone with a 3-digit IQ score. Sorry, I won't make the same mistake again.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        typical westoid pseud

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        It’s pious because it’s loved by the gods. Good doesn’t exist without god so it has to be that. He created all after all. It would flip everything on its head and contradict everything to say good is independent of him, it’s an absurd statement to make

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Stupid dilemma don’t make sense

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Then, theoretically, there is nothing preventing the Gods from loving cannibalistic murder. Since they are the Gods and our moral intuitions are downstream from theirs. You fail to understand the point being made

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            Your mind can come up with whatever nonsense and impossibilities it likes 'in theory' to prove or disprove this point. Additionally, it can invent or disinvent as many paradoxes as it likes. Why?

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            How do you make that leap? They themselves prevent it or allow it if your going to say that that’s nonsense because there’s no reason for it you can say that about anything

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >Euthyphro Dilemma
        "The Euthyphron is a very paradoxical dialogue. So indeed is every Platonic dialogue. The specific paradoxy of the Euthyphron consists in this. The normal procedure in a Platonic dialogue in the type to which the Euthyphron belongs is that the interlocutor gives first a definition which expresses the most common view on the subject under discussion and then gradually is led to a higher view. But the first definition suggested in the Euthyphron is in the decisive respect superior to the last definition, which merely formulates the popular view of piety, meaning piety consists in sacrifice and prayer. More generally expressed, whereas the normal procedure in the Platonic dialogues is ascent from the lower to the higher, the procedure followed in the Euthyphron is descent from the higher to the lower."

        "Shortly before the end of the dialogue, Socrates compares Euthyphron to Proteus. Proteus was a wily sea-god who could only with great difficulty be seized. He could turn into all kinds of shapes—bearded lions, dragons, leopards, huge boars, liquid water, branching trees. Euthyphron resembles Proteus because he cannot easily be seized, but changes his position all the time. Moreover, Euthyphron resembles Proteus because Proteus is unerring: he can tell all the secrets of the gods. Now Socrates tries to seize Euthyphron, to force him to tell the truth. Who tried to seize Proteus in the myth, to force him to tell the truth? Menelaus. Just as Euthyphron imitates Proteus, Socrates imitates Menelaus. Socrates resembles Menelaus. What does Socrates have in common with Menelaus? Menelaus is the husband of Helen, just as Socrates is the husband of Xanthippe. <...> Menelaus tried to seize Proteus because only Proteus could tell him how he could get out of the trouble into which he had come because he did not make the offering due. Socrates tried to seize Euthyphron because only Euthyphron could tell him how he could get out of the trouble into which he had come because he did not make the offerings due. It seems that this state of things throws some light on Socrates’ last word to Crito in the Phaedo: "We still owe Asclepius a cock,” as one might well understand the passage. However this may be, Socrates failed where Menelaus succeeded. The reason is obvious. Socrates did not ask his Proteus what he, Socrates, should do, but he asked him a purely theoretical question, What is piety? "

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      God is not good, God is goodness itself, everything good emanates from Him.

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Evil being unreal is better

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Grow up.

  7. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    No, this guy's answer is the only good one.

    "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the deadly light into the peace and safety of a new dark age."

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      gnosticism isn't any thing. it's the hellenistic equivalent of """the occult""". it's a poorly defined mix of tangentially related ideas, amounting to whatever sounds cool and edgy. any definite fact you think you know about what gnostics believed was probably never that definite.

      lovecraft sucks my fat nuts and balls it's dogshit writing and a dogshit excuse for a cosmology

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Some guy said never to read all lower case posters and I've been doing it. It's really great.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          eat my shit fag

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          yeah yea, move along

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            What? I can't hear you

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      Is the left guy nagger?

  8. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Everything keeps leading to paradox or contradiction. Every argument for/against god, every argument for epistemology or math axioms. It just loops back to where it started

    I can't take it anymore

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous
    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Hegel

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        Hegel was an obscurantist. He just liked to use big words. He intended to confuse people

        Also he never solved any of the mathematical paradoxes or gaps in modern science

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      Paradox is the seemingly impassible yet paper-thin wall that hides God

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        No, that's just the explanatory gap

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop

  9. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    The problem of evil is pretty thoroughly addressed in the Book of Job, which is perhaps one of the most gnostic-adjacent texts in the Judeo-Christian canon. Essentially if evil is permitted by divine authorship it is done by some measure beyond all mortal understanding or rationality at the hand of a god who is vastly more powerful and all-knowing than we can even fathom. A Book of Genesis explanation of the problem of evil would be something like "God punishes those who are not faithful but protects those who accept his covenant" but Job posits that even the most faithful and prosperous can have evil cast upon them by God's authorship. Job is the preemptive answer to and archetype of the gnostic - he demands answers to the question of evil and challenges divinity to explain its machinations - in this case literally by appealing to divinity, but figuratively he could have tried through occult means - but is rebuked by God when he appears in the form of a whirlwind and states: "Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?"

    Gnosticism, from a Judeo-Christian perspective, is Greek-influenced heresy that tries to apply rationality to a concept that definitionally cannot be rationalized. Gnosticism is an interesting thought experiment for contrarians and people who want to get into occultism but its questions are pretty thoroughly answered in the Judeo-Christian canon.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      An omnipotent God should be able to account for the discrepancy between his actions and the misrecognition of his actions as Evil. Apparently, he already did so with his angels, since they are one with his will.

      Your answer fails to satisfy.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        You literally understood nothing from that post.

        >Essentially if evil is permitted by divine authorship it is done by some measure beyond all mortal understanding or rationality at the hand of a god who is vastly more powerful and all-knowing than we can even fathom.

        You:

        >An omnipotent God should be able to account for the discrepancy between his actions and the misrecognition of his actions as Evil.

        God doesn't have to explain shit to beings who cannot even fathom his omnipotence and omniscience. Job demands an accounting for why God allows suffering and is rebuked because he is merely a mortal who definitionally cannot understand God's machinations. Gnosticism is the ant questioning the morality of why the human crushes his nest underfoot while travelling somewhere he cannot have knowledge of in the purpose of something he cannot understand.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          mindbroken bootlicker. nothing but a cock worshipper. I got your post, it wasn't that sophisticated

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Not even a Christian but I can understand why the Church burned gnostics at the stake for heresy. The absolute arrogance in believing that you can know what is posited in your own gospels to be unknowable and to demand answers from a being that you quite literally believe to be omnipotent and omniscient.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              Should the Church have burned all theologians at the stake, then? Because literally all of them tried to rationalize the Gospels to varying extents.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Misc Pot for Pope

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              But they don't believe they know what is posited as unknowable in "their own gospels" because they are not their gospels. Do you have even the most cursory understanding of what you're talking about? Marcion threw the entire Old Testament and proto-New Testament to the dogs.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >God doesn't have to explain shit to beings who cannot even fathom his omnipotence and omniscience.
          This is cope and, ironically, leads to epistemological relativism.
          See

          If God is so utterly incomprehensible, then what's the point of the systematic theology you Christians are apparently so fond of? Like, if you can ignore every apparent contradiction within your belief system and shrug it off as a "mystery", then you have arrived at a dead end and rendered any rational enquiry pointless. The heretic, the infidel and even the atheist can also appeal to mystery to "resolve" any contradictory beliefs they may have, and who are you to tell them that they are wrong? For example, imagine if I created the most heretical Christian denomination you could ever think of, and whenever people pointed out the obvious contradictions between my teachings and the Bible, I simply said "well, it's certainly a mystery why God decided to add those apparently contradictory verses in the Bible, but I trust in His perfect judgement nonetheless, since it is far above the power of human reason", and it would be as legitimate of a response as yours.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >the Book of Job
      >Job
      why don't you get one?

      There is no Problem of Evil proper in Hinduism because suffering does not contradict some allegedly omnibenevolent design. You don't have the faintest clue of the contexts in which these problems occur.

      Or you could say that 'evil' is stupidity; or mithyvata ("wrong belief"), as I believe you guys say, where the evil actions of a person are caused by their stubborn persistence in prideful errors; "belief" that when they do evil that they do good.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      If God is so utterly incomprehensible, then what's the point of the systematic theology you Christians are apparently so fond of? Like, if you can ignore every apparent contradiction within your belief system and shrug it off as a "mystery", then you have arrived at a dead end and rendered any rational enquiry pointless. The heretic, the infidel and even the atheist can also appeal to mystery to "resolve" any contradictory beliefs they may have, and who are you to tell them that they are wrong? For example, imagine if I created the most heretical Christian denomination you could ever think of, and whenever people pointed out the obvious contradictions between my teachings and the Bible, I simply said "well, it's certainly a mystery why God decided to add those apparently contradictory verses in the Bible, but I trust in His perfect judgement nonetheless, since it is far above the power of human reason", and it would be as legitimate of a response as yours.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Obliterated. The Book of Job is the most exquisite p-zombie filter ever devised.

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          >p-zombie filter
          please explain.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            p-zombie is just the cool philosophical name for the NPC meme.
            Similar to hylic, but the group of people described is slightly different.

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        Will you please tell me a little about whatever it is that you believe to be truth?

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          My post was supossed to be an internal critique of Christians who think that constantly appealing to "mystery" is a good response to problems like the problem of evil. I don't see how my personal beliefs are relevant in this context.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            >I don't see how my personal beliefs are relevant in this context.
            Fair enough. And maybe they aren't.

            I come from a christian background. Or more accurately, i grew up in the USA, which *was* largely based on the Christian tradition.
            My family was never religious, but I began attended church independently as a young adult to fulfull some need for spirituallity.
            I have since, shall we say, 'expanded' by thoughts beyond traditional Christianity. I now tend to view most Christians as spiritual children (I suppose I am too...).

            Perhaps related, perhaps not: I see a lot of activity in the world today that I would classify as "evil" (and quite frankly, the "Every. Single. Time." meme seems to apply). I believe Objective Morality and Objective Truth exist. I just don't know what it *is*.

            To me, God(s) is/are, in a sense, indistinguishable from "the ayys lmao" by being "sentient being(s) from some other planet/realm/dimension".
            If the words of the Bible are true, fine. If the Annunaki created us, also fine. (which begs the question of who created the Annuanki, but I digress....)
            I simply want to understand what is "the Truth".

            I believe your post to be "objectively true".
            I asked simply to try to draw some more water from the same well.

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        >pretending he doesn't call things beyond the limits of his understanding a mystery
        If appealing to mystery in such a way invalidates everything you say then everything you say is also invalidated.

        If there exists a platonic ideal of good (bbc splitting my pink racist ass in half), then logically there must be a dark counterpart

        >If a chair exists the anti-chair must too.
        What? What's an anti-chair or anti-circle?

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          I wasn't talking about chairs, i was talking about good.
          learn to read, libtard

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            Why does good demand an anti-good but nothing else does?

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          Yes, there are things within my belief system for which I don't have an explanation *yet*. But we are talking about a LOGICAL contradiction within a MAJOR issue of the Christian belief system (i.e. the attributes of God). There's a difference between not knowing why is there something rather than nothing, and not knowking how mutually contradictory statements can both be true (and yet still holding on to them). My belief system may be defficient, but if someone told me that there is an unsolvable, logical contradiction at its core, then I would quickly reject it. Christians don't do that, though, and yet they expect heretics, infidels and atheists to abandon their beliefs because of the supossed errors or contradictions that they contain.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            >if someone told me that there is an unsolvable, logical contradiction at its core
            There are plenty. You appeal to empiricism but can't empirically prove empiricism etc.
            All humans have are flawed models of a reality too complex to ever be contained in a description or model. That your model isn't perfect isn't some disaster, you would only think that if until then you believed your model was perfect divine truth in which case it makes sense to treat it dogmatically instead of thinking.

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          >If appealing to mystery in such a way invalidates everything you say then everything you say is also invalidated.
          And even if it was true that all belief systems inevitablybentail "mysteries" and unsolvable contradictions, that would still make any belief system equally as rational (or irrational) as Christianity. So why choose Christianity instead of literally anything else? Appealing to mystery or divine inescrutability to solve the problem of evil thus leads to epistemological relativism, a conclusion that most Christians would certainly want to avoid.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            >So why choose Christianity instead of literally anything else?
            Because it accounts for more than other models. Science rests within the Christian worldview. Your real complaint is that Christianity doesn't rest within the scientific worldview. That's because science encompasses less.

            • 7 days ago
              Anonymous

              >Because it accounts for more than other models.
              How so?

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                I told you in the post you're replying to. You can have a Christian worldview that accounts for science but not a scientific worldview that accounts for the phenomena Christianity accounts for. It's the superior worldview, even the sense of superiority atheists have about their scientific worldview is inherited from Christianity like everything else.

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      > Gnosticism is an interesting thought experiment for contrarians and people who want to get into occultism but its questions are pretty thoroughly answered in the Judeo-Christian canon.
      go on....

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        replace "God" with "Satan/Demiurge" in that post, and see how much more sense it makes.

        >I can do whatever evil thing i want, i'm Satan/Demiurge, how DARE you question me!
        >I made the world, i can torture innocent babies for all eternity if i want, and still claim to be good, if i want, because i'm the Demiurge.
        >besides, who is going to stop me?! LOL
        Just because OT god doesn't want to explain his evil to others doesn't mean there isn't a rational answer.
        And why would the Demiurge (or god) create humans with rationality and then at the same time condemn them for utilizing it?

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      "Might makes right" is not a satisfactory answer to torturing your cosmic ant farm

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      >Evil be a mystery 'n shit
      >YOOU CAN'T KNOW

      dumb of course because there's really no reason to accept that Christianity is the truth, especially in contrast with something like Islam if you're abrahambrained

      I can accept that Christianity is a path to the divine, but in my experience it denies everything cool about interfacing with the Godhead (things that christians end up doing anyway like divination)
      Plus there's just foundational problems with it like its universalism, millenarianism, linear time, slave morality etc

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      Wait there’s a book in a bible that tackles the problem of evil directly? Why don’t more people refer to this book when talking about the problem of evil? Is it because most people are retarded and don’t read?

  10. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    No. It's a very long passageway that a Christian or Muslim takes to escape the evil god Yahweh (eden story; hates humans who want to know right from wrong) which loops them back to Yahweh.

    Ironically Paul seems to have told the truth on this matter,
    "(coming froma theocratic society where we're forced to declare God is good when we teach God is evil and hates wisdom) it is impossible to be good."

    Problem of evil solved; it's a judeo-christian construct. Or just a judeo one; whoever invented the Yahweh character in the first place.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Problem of evil solved; it's a judeo-christian construct.
      I will accept this.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Problem of evil solved; it's a judeo-christian construct.
      I will accept this.

      Other cultures have evil. Also, if a true religion is true then it would accurately describe good and evil and thus it would be a unique problem to them.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >Other cultures have evil.
        Other people 'do' evil, yes. But you'll struggle to find a culture where 'evil' is so aggrandized and made out to be powerful; 'evil' is childlike and petty-minded, an incident of rape for example, is more often treated like the criminal was a stupid retard than that the criminal was a criminal genius.

        The aggrandizement, to the scale that it is in the Christian society especially, is rather unique; where God himself is shown to be powerless to stop 'the Devil', etc.

        This is different anyway to other religions and cultures, or the original polytheism where the concept of 'Satan' is absent (Hades or Osiris, for example, aren't evil actors in opposition to 'all goodness', they're custodians of the afterlife).

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >where God himself is shown to be powerless to stop 'the Devil',
          Very subtle nuance here - God could and does stop evil with forgiveness and grace but more primarily God ALLOWS Satan to attack Job, God Himself does not attack Job.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >Very subtle nuance here - God could and does stop evil with forgiveness and grace but more primarily God ALLOWS Satan to attack Job, God Himself does not attack Job.
            Well okay but that's a story for you in your theology, isn't it? "Evil" as "grotesque actions from other human beings" is the point being mentioned really; just in general to displace the causes of these things onto mystical spirit entities only helps to conceal the actual causes of these actions and prevent them from being prevented,
            e.g. "blaming the devil when Jim steals money from you," for example, may actually be something that could have been prevented if you'd been graceful enough to give him the money in the first place and it might not be a crime if you just forgave him after the theft lol, but then that doesn't really 'work' IRL, does it?

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              >e.g. "blaming the devil when Jim steals money from you," for example, may actually be something that could have been prevented if you'd been graceful enough to give him the money in the first place and it might not be a crime if you just forgave him after the theft lol, but then that doesn't really 'work' IRL, does it?
              This is actually genuinely a brilliant question. Yes that's right and it works IRL. One of the desert father's famously was getting ribbed and he helped load up his possessions to his robbers.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >it works IRL.
                >One of the desert father's famously was getting ribbed and he helped load up his possessions to his robbers.
                What? How can you possibly advocate this?

                There is a grain of truth to te idea, I grant you that, that it is our choice whether to take the time to help somebody or not and prevent them from degenerating int criminality; but most of the time this will be read as gullibility and will embolden the criminal to try and get away with more. It's up to that persons family to help them really, it cannot be advocated that ordinary persons open the door to any thieves and rapists who wander along, that's insanity - completely unworkable.

                [...]
                >Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
                One of the wilder lines in the Gospels in that evil is a NECESSITY

                >evil is a NECESSITY
                es em ach, brah. This is why I concluded long ago that Christianity (or Judeo whatever) was a religion 'for' evil persons to enable them to get away with inhumane and stupid actions.

                Refer back to my first post here:

                No. It's a very long passageway that a Christian or Muslim takes to escape the evil god Yahweh (eden story; hates humans who want to know right from wrong) which loops them back to Yahweh.

                Ironically Paul seems to have told the truth on this matter,
                "(coming froma theocratic society where we're forced to declare God is good when we teach God is evil and hates wisdom) it is impossible to be good."

                Problem of evil solved; it's a judeo-christian construct. Or just a judeo one; whoever invented the Yahweh character in the first place.

                i ask the reader to decide for themselves, after seeing what one of their advocates has said.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                According to Christ.
                [...]
                Necessity because all things mortal are evil, i.e. the Earth itself is merely mortal. This is why pure goodness is immortal.
                [...]
                >What? How can you possibly advocate this?
                >There is a grain of truth to te idea,
                If this grain of truth doesn't stupify, horrify, and leave you in eternal awe I'd be surprised. The ordinary person should operate like this for thieves, albeit not for rape because the body hosts the soul, but for theft for sure. It is worth debating if you have a family then they are stealing from others but as a bachelor I never locked my doors because frankly it doesn't matter.

                I have practiced what I preached. I got randomly hit in the street and I asked the guy who hit me if he was okay and he just kept walking away. A missionary in India had her entire family killed and forgave the murderers and she was given a nation medal. Keep in mind forgivness is not, like crime, ever isolated to just you.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >A missionary in India had her entire family killed and forgave the murderers and she was given a nation medal.
                You cannot forgive someone who does not request it.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              >e.g. "blaming the devil when Jim steals money from you," for example, may actually be something that could have been prevented if you'd been graceful enough to give him the money in the first place and it might not be a crime if you just forgave him after the theft lol, but then that doesn't really 'work' IRL, does it?
              This is actually genuinely a brilliant question. Yes that's right and it works IRL. One of the desert father's famously was getting ribbed and he helped load up his possessions to his robbers.

              >Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!
              One of the wilder lines in the Gospels in that evil is a NECESSITY

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                For an omnipotent God? According to whom?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                According to Christ.

                Is evil a necessity because God infallibly decreed it to happen, or is it because even God is powerless to stop it?

                Necessity because all things mortal are evil, i.e. the Earth itself is merely mortal. This is why pure goodness is immortal.

                >it works IRL.
                >One of the desert father's famously was getting ribbed and he helped load up his possessions to his robbers.
                What? How can you possibly advocate this?

                There is a grain of truth to te idea, I grant you that, that it is our choice whether to take the time to help somebody or not and prevent them from degenerating int criminality; but most of the time this will be read as gullibility and will embolden the criminal to try and get away with more. It's up to that persons family to help them really, it cannot be advocated that ordinary persons open the door to any thieves and rapists who wander along, that's insanity - completely unworkable.

                [...]
                >evil is a NECESSITY
                es em ach, brah. This is why I concluded long ago that Christianity (or Judeo whatever) was a religion 'for' evil persons to enable them to get away with inhumane and stupid actions.

                Refer back to my first post here: [...]

                i ask the reader to decide for themselves, after seeing what one of their advocates has said.

                >What? How can you possibly advocate this?
                >There is a grain of truth to te idea,
                If this grain of truth doesn't stupify, horrify, and leave you in eternal awe I'd be surprised. The ordinary person should operate like this for thieves, albeit not for rape because the body hosts the soul, but for theft for sure. It is worth debating if you have a family then they are stealing from others but as a bachelor I never locked my doors because frankly it doesn't matter.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Necessity because all things mortal are evil
                Not all things mortal are equally evil, and the story of genesis shows that things don't have to be mortal in the first place.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >all things mortal are not equally evil
                Relative to one another there are differences, relative to infinite goodness they are identical.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >relative to infinite goodness they are identical.
                Then why does God punish some beings and rewards others when there is barely any moral difference between them?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Do you think I'm retarded enough to believe in eternal damnation? Everyone is saved unless they choose not to be, in this life or the next.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                I'm sorry but I though we were talking about the PoE in the context of Christianity. Still, I'm glad to hear that you don't believe in eternal damnation, it's one of the most retarded ideas ever conceived by man, that's for sure.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                The main reason I'm not Roman Catholic, despite qanting to be desperately.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >If this grain of truth doesn't stupify, horrify, and leave you in eternal awe I'd be surprised. The ordinary person should operate like this for thieves, albeit not for rape
                That's demented though; a state or community like that, let's say if it operated on this principle, would be basically dog food for the lowest of wandering retards to steal from; i.e. paying taxes for a police force only to have the police force smile and wave when the raiders arrive, helping them rob you, etc.

                Okay, refer back to the 'aggrandizement of evil' I mentioned;

                >Other cultures have evil.
                Other people 'do' evil, yes. But you'll struggle to find a culture where 'evil' is so aggrandized and made out to be powerful; 'evil' is childlike and petty-minded, an incident of rape for example, is more often treated like the criminal was a stupid retard than that the criminal was a criminal genius.

                The aggrandizement, to the scale that it is in the Christian society especially, is rather unique; where God himself is shown to be powerless to stop 'the Devil', etc.

                This is different anyway to other religions and cultures, or the original polytheism where the concept of 'Satan' is absent (Hades or Osiris, for example, aren't evil actors in opposition to 'all goodness', they're custodians of the afterlife).

                this is exactly it,

                You're advocating to open yourself up to the abuse from scrawny creatures armed with sticks and stones, to 'allow' them to overpower you, steal your things, burn your house, rape and eat your family, etc., when these are barbarians who would run from you at the first sign of violence on your part.

                The notion of pacficism is high-minded,yes, but it's deeply misplaced and does no good in these kind of scenarios.

                You say,
                > albeit not for rape because the body hosts the soul, but for theft for sure.
                but when you give up on the idea of defending yourself (we don't need to discuss proactively hunting down and putting in chains the vikings or cannibals to prevent them from doing any harm at all) then you dont have that option to tell them "no don't rape and eat my newborn baby" because you've allowed them into your hut to plunder your kitchenware in the first place, having decided not to ambush and kill them beforehand.

                Then, robbed,homeless and crying over a pile of half-eaten bones, you say it's "the devil" who has done this to your family. No brah, it was 'you' because you failed to address the cause of the outcome that you suffered.

                This is a good subject though lol i can't believe I found someone to argue this with(!)

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >You're advocating to open yourself up to the abuse from scrawny creatures armed with sticks and stones, to 'allow' them to overpower you, steal your things, burn your house, rape and eat your family, etc., when these are barbarians who would run from you at the first sign of violence on your part.
                Yes. You're missing a crucial dynamic: If you show mercy the rest of the world will turn on these roving mauraders. This is how martyrdom works because you are never a martyr in isolation and thus the martyr becomes a martyr in context. Forgiveness happens in context. If you don't approach the world with this grace then everything is a method of useless self-defense. All of your loved ones died. Your money leaves you when you're dead. Have you tried stealing from a church? Do you think they'll come after you to put you in jail? No. So why not steal? Because you know everyone else will view you horribly and that will be your real punishment. You have to remember that if you play a boardgame and someone cheats and you're alone and you let them cheat they'll probably win and cheat. If you never do anything they'll stop cheating, more or less maybe, but if you are in a room and they notice that your opponent cheats and you forgive then they throw your opponent out and leave you be. If you were to fight and make a scene you'd both be thrown out. Keep in mind, this isn't encouraging silence but forgiveness.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Yes. You're missing a crucial dynamic: If you show mercy the rest of the world will turn on these roving mauraders. This is how martyrdom works
                So you let yourself be raped and killed and abused so that 'other' people will take the initiative to ambush and kill those hypothetical barbarians 'after' the damage has been done. What is the point of this?

                >You have to remember that if you play a boardgame and someone cheats and you're alone and you let them cheat they'll probably win and cheat. If you never do anything they'll stop cheating, more or less maybe, but if you are in a room and they notice that your opponent cheats and you forgive then they throw your opponent out and leave you be.
                So you rely on others, basically, to help you out of pity that you can't look out for yourself or stand up to boys who cheat at Uno.

                Iavoided using the term "slave mentality" b this is exactly what you're describing; a total lack of agency under the pretext (or hopeful pretext) that someone like me will notice that yo're being taken advantage of and step in to help you. I may do, once. But when I notice you're the one responsible for it I won't help you twice.

                >Have you tried stealing from a church? Do you think they'll come after you to put you in jail? No.
                idk what dreamland you're living in,anon.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >So you let yourself be raped and killed and abused so that 'other' people will take the initiative to ambush and kill those hypothetical barbarians 'after' the damage has been done. What is the point of this?
                You were talking about practicality IRL and it is IRL practical. Look at the total moral indignation people have over muh income inequality or slavery despite not believing in God. Total grace will turn people into Protestant zombies by accident and they will defend you and if they don't it still doesn't matter because you were able to forgive and thus act morally.
                >So you rely on others, basically, to help you out of pity that you can't look out for yourself or stand up to boys who cheat at Uno.
                From a worldly sense, yes.
                >a total lack of agency under the pretext (or hopeful pretext) that someone like me will notice that yo're being taken advantage of and step in to help you
                Slave mentality is predicated on the degree that one fears death so this is pretty much the opposite of slavery.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >You were talking about practicality IRL and it is IRL practical.
                I disagree; for obvious reasons I think to anybody scrolling back through the last replies of what you were advocating lol, but also for the lesser mentioned point of your aggrandizement of those petty criminals.

                Essentially you'd be hoping that other people would help you out, i.e. you're voluntarily establishing your own subservience or reliance on others, that's slavery in the real sense. Fear of death doesn't motivate you in this, but refusal to take agency for yourself; subservience.

                >grace will turn people into Protestant zombies by accident and they will defend you and if they don't it still doesn't matter because you were able to forgive and thus act morally.
                Yeah I thought this was where you were coming from; notice the continuity of unworthy or fake martyrs being rallying points; cause celebres, for some people. It doesn't legitimize it though; quite the opposite by showing us the proclivity towards the dynamics; public lynchings and burnings predicated upon perceived or fabricated moral outrage "(black man) raped me with his eyes" is more like an excuse for the crazed people to indulge in barbarity in the first place and not, as you think, some sense grace on the part of the torch-wielding mob.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >raped me with his eyes"
                in fact you're almost advocating sociopathy in that you're putting yourself, in a premeditated manner, in the place of a willing-victim specifically in order to evoke sympathy with a passerby.

                >convinced one of the guards who arrested him and he begged James for forgiveness.
                You just couldn't get the staff in those days.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >in fact you're almost advocating sociopathy
                ed.
                as well as, technically,entrapment; you're inviting the criminal in, you're telling him he can do what he wants, then you're shouting for help and smirking when he's set on fire by the neighbors (if they feel like helping you). Whereas simply holding a knife to his throat would have made him reconsider his ways without any real bloodshed, then he'd explain he was starving and then maybe you could have convinced him to stop robbing and given him a bowl of soup and a job on your farm, or something.

                I mean, that's the real way to handle that situation.

                "You want crimes to happen to you." No.

                I have read Eusebius. You should read Lucien of Samosata "on the death of peregrinus" to learn about martydom and fame-seeking.

                You're mistaking what is a methodology reality from the goal of something.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >in fact you're almost advocating sociopathy
                ed.
                as well as, technically,entrapment; you're inviting the criminal in, you're telling him he can do what he wants, then you're shouting for help and smirking when he's set on fire by the neighbors (if they feel like helping you). Whereas simply holding a knife to his throat would have made him reconsider his ways without any real bloodshed, then he'd explain he was starving and then maybe you could have convinced him to stop robbing and given him a bowl of soup and a job on your farm, or something.

                I mean, that's the real way to handle that situation.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >So you let yourself be raped and killed and abused so that 'other' people will take the initiative to ambush and kill those hypothetical barbarians 'after' the damage has been done. What is the point of this?
                You were talking about practicality IRL and it is IRL practical. Look at the total moral indignation people have over muh income inequality or slavery despite not believing in God. Total grace will turn people into Protestant zombies by accident and they will defend you and if they don't it still doesn't matter because you were able to forgive and thus act morally.
                >So you rely on others, basically, to help you out of pity that you can't look out for yourself or stand up to boys who cheat at Uno.
                From a worldly sense, yes.
                >a total lack of agency under the pretext (or hopeful pretext) that someone like me will notice that yo're being taken advantage of and step in to help you
                Slave mentality is predicated on the degree that one fears death so this is pretty much the opposite of slavery.

                BTW look at Eusebius's Early Church History. James (Jesus's half brother and founder of one of the church) was arrested in Jerusalem and he gave a speech about why he believed Jesus was God and convinced one of the guards who arrested him and he begged James for forgiveness. James forgave him and they were executed together. Who won? Rome or Christ? St Peter's Basilica is where St. Paul was crucified in Rome.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                I have read Eusebius. You should read Lucien of Samosata "on the death of peregrinus" to learn about martydom and fame-seeking.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Is evil a necessity because God infallibly decreed it to happen, or is it because even God is powerless to stop it?

  11. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    well I think gods exist only because humans create and sustain them

    the demiurge is the top boi in that mess

    either a beast or an insane thing, like an egregore created by humans through ape threat detection systems

    the demiurge broke naturalism because we broke it through our imaginations and instincts

    so gnosticism is a good answer to the Problem of Evil - no "good" god would allow creatures to suffer, so no "good" god can exist

    only an innocent beast or insane evil god can exist (based on our experiences)

    all who deny this are lost already, living in a circle of empty attempts to rationalize or accept evil

    sorry Abrahamics, your god is just in your mind and you believing in it broke your spirit so bad you think it all makes sense somehow

  12. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    It's a cool way to deal with life being endlessly destructive and depressing but ultimately it's just mystical nihilism. Great imagery and concepts though, you gotta give it that.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >gnosticism
      >mystical nihilism
      You have no idea what you're talking about.

      No, only Schelling has a good answer.

      Agreed. Schelling's book is excellent and obliterates 99% of the positions on this topic. It's too bad he shrinks back from radical dualism.

      well I think gods exist only because humans create and sustain them

      the demiurge is the top boi in that mess

      either a beast or an insane thing, like an egregore created by humans through ape threat detection systems

      the demiurge broke naturalism because we broke it through our imaginations and instincts

      so gnosticism is a good answer to the Problem of Evil - no "good" god would allow creatures to suffer, so no "good" god can exist

      only an innocent beast or insane evil god can exist (based on our experiences)

      all who deny this are lost already, living in a circle of empty attempts to rationalize or accept evil

      sorry Abrahamics, your god is just in your mind and you believing in it broke your spirit so bad you think it all makes sense somehow

      Agreed. Finally some sanity in this thread.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Look how he recoils. "I've been found out".

  13. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    No, only Schelling has a good answer.

  14. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    So if you read the world as a Jesus-Earth-Human triad, where souls are actually pre-existent to life and we choose to live on Earth and forget our oen totally divine nature and play a game, where Christ is the savior point and Earth / Human is whatever gets a soul for the game, while UFOs are the guardians of the game, we see that basically the problem of evil is solved by wanting to be born on Earth in the first place. This also explains the motion of forgiveness is the return to the over-soul.

  15. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Since human beings lack an actual objective perspective on Evil, I do not consider the question legitimate to begin with.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      you smart, but that changes nothing about the subjective and intersubjective occurences of what ppl see and experience as evil, right?

      you sound like an agnostic, begone back to your bland corner of the world! Blessed be the ignorant, but none should waste time on their ramblings!

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >if you step back, cannibal serial killers make the painting even prettier 🙂
      end it

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Entirely possible. Why create some gay perfect universe when you could make one that's metal?

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >metal
          Why post on LULZ when you can post on Reddit where you belong?

  16. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    If you still think the problem of evil is a problem you’re just an idiot honestly. It is easily addressed and has been easily addressed by Christians for a thousand years now at least. You can find this online easily.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >If you still think the problem of evil is a problem you’re just an idiot honestly. It is easily addressed and has been easily addressed by Christians for a thousand years now at least. You can find this online easily.
      God tortures you in order to test your love of Him.

      >drunk_man_beating_wife.jpg

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        No. That’s your headcanon. Please refer to actual theology and dogma rather than what some random preacher said.

        Soulmaking can't explain non-human suffering

        Privatio boni then just recontextualizes the problem as the Problem of the Diminishing Good (why/how does an omnipotent God allow lack; if evil does not exist then what are we talking about when we talk about evil; if lack is predicated on creation, shouldn't we hold God responsible for creating the conditions necessary for evil?)

        Free will can't account for non-human suffering, too anthropocentric, and there is nothing preventing an omnipotent God from creating beings that are free and will the good by their nature, or else you have to accept that God is tempted by evil since he is free and that good-natured people are automata

        You tell me. Why do you think you should hold a creator to the moral demands of his creatures when in fact the claim had always been that evil is necessarily the absence of him? Sounds like it makes no sense to me but what do I know?!

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          >when in fact the claim had always been that evil is necessarily the absence of him
          Then the Problem of Evil becomes the Problem of the Absence of Good. You tell me: when does good "switch off" and become evil? Where's the cut-off point between benevolence and cruelty? How does an opposite pass into another? And why would an omnipotent God be bound by absence or privation?

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          >headcanon
          hm.

          Well if you deny points like that why on Gaias Earth do you still call yourself a (whatever sect)?

          > Gnosticism is an interesting thought experiment for contrarians and people who want to get into occultism but its questions are pretty thoroughly answered in the Judeo-Christian canon.
          go on....

          Gods teeth, boy. Demiurge comes from Demos_Ourgos meaning "politcal impulse", it's an obvious allegory taken literally by stupid people centuries after the fact, it's not a real creature who lives under the ground nor ever was.

          [...]
          "You want crimes to happen to you." No.
          [...]
          You're mistaking what is a methodology reality from the goal of something.

          Well since you didn't reply with counter-arguments to my refutations of your position,
          >summ: we should let criminals rob us, we shouldn't stop them, we should be pathetic in order to arouse the help of passersby to stop them for us!*
          all my refutations stand.

          *note to reader; this is not even an exaggeration.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Soulmaking can't explain non-human suffering

      Privatio boni then just recontextualizes the problem as the Problem of the Diminishing Good (why/how does an omnipotent God allow lack; if evil does not exist then what are we talking about when we talk about evil; if lack is predicated on creation, shouldn't we hold God responsible for creating the conditions necessary for evil?)

      Free will can't account for non-human suffering, too anthropocentric, and there is nothing preventing an omnipotent God from creating beings that are free and will the good by their nature, or else you have to accept that God is tempted by evil since he is free and that good-natured people are automata

  17. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    its just a bunch of stuff that people happened to like the idea of. its not real

  18. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >i.e. paying taxes for a police force only to have the police force smile and wave when the raiders arrive, helping them rob you, etc.
    you'd be living in America, essentially.

    badam chhussshhh

  19. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Definitely not.
    t. not-the-urge

  20. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    You're all retards. "Suffering" exists like everything else because God is perfectly good. I'm grateful for the gift. That you don't like your divine gifts is purely your problem. You would and do complain the same way about everything you're given.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Brainworms.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        You can't even formulate your supposed "problem". It just boils down to "I'm a spoiled retard with no coherent thoughts about any subject".
        It's always based on some vague, braindead idea that benevolence must inherently be defined as something that constantly sucks your dick, something that completely serves all your worst aspects. You're completely braindead, no thoughts there.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Since everything that exists is because God is perfectly good, shouldn't you be also grateful for the fact that we don't appreciate God's gifts? Because it seems that you're complaining about a certain feature of God's "perfect" creation, which puts you in the same position as us.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        I'm grateful for the opportunity to shit on you, help you grow and grow myself in the process.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          But, what's the point of growth if you consider everything to be "good" and a "gift from God"? If everything that happens is going to be a perfect reflection of God's perfect goodness regardless, what's the point of anything? Your pathetic attempt at solving the problem of evil by denying the existence of evil in the first place leads you to even more problems and contradictions.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Again you can't think at all. There are no contradictions there. What was the point of anything when you resented reality? Why does it suddenly become pointless when you stop resenting it?

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              >Why does it suddenly become pointless when you stop resenting it?
              Because if you deny the existence of evil, then every state of affairs is equally as valuable as any other state of affairs, which is absurd and removes any motivation for human action.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                If the "flaw" that causes me angst or whatever rests with God I don't have to do anything. There's nothing I can do. If the flaw rests with me I have to grow to face it.

                Incoherent nonsense. The fact I told you I can grow says I believe states can be more or less desirable. I'm saying I don't resent the game like you do simply for resisting my will sometimes. It's all a benevolent gift including the struggle.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >If the "flaw" that causes me angst or whatever rests with God I don't have to do anything.
                Why would an omnibenevolent God either allow or decree the suffering of his creatures?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                We already discussed this. You're too braindead to process anything said. No part of anything you're saying has any relationship to anything except your unreasoned resentment.
                In the formalization of the argument what you call suffering is just not being omnipotent. Actual suffering, the thing you really resent is purely of your own making, a result of things like being resentful about not being omnipotent. When you present the "problem of evil" you're telling everyone you're retard torturing himself for no reason and blaming reality for it.
                >why would God allow me to be this retarded
                Don't know but I'm grateful for the opportunity to rise above these challenges. There is no inherent malevolence there, just your diseased mind.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Survivorship bias tripe. Your theodicy is a dorm room poster

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Except that gift is given to creatures that can't make any use of it, like children or the uncomprehending suffering of animals. You haven't grown to understand that reality is as saturated with senseless evil and suffering as it is joyful struggle because your awareness is limited.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >like children or the uncomprehending suffering of animals
                You're projecting your own resentment. Children and animals don't resent their lives like you do despite the adversity, it doesn't occur to them to frame adversity like you. They're healthy, natural creatures, not deranged robots programmed to fester, seethe and destroy like you. The challenges they face is nothing like the made up idea you're using to justify your horseshit.
                >Survivorship bias
                Irrelevant incoherent horseshit by a mindless golem unable to string together even a single thought on any subject.
                "You" face challenges, that doesn't say anything about if the source of everything is benevolent or not.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Gratuitous suffering is real and self-evident, children don't have to resent suffering to suffer, animals don't have to conceptualize distress to experience it, you're a tiresome coper and cognitive narcissist, you've suffered within certain tolerances your whole life and you think it makes you a shonen protagonist. If I can't speak for the suffering of others, neither can you.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Gratuitous suffering is real and self-evident
                You don't know or understand anything. Everything is based on your feefees with no hint of reason. If you for example actually study a bit how children/animals respond to physical pain and how deranged retards like you seethe about it you'll see the difference between the phenomena you're pretending to argue based on and the phenomena you're actually arguing based on.
                >animals don't have to conceptualize distress to experience it
                And the existence of adversity like distress does not say anything about if the source of everything is benevolent or not.
                >If I can't speak for the suffering of others, neither can you
                Then why are you arguing as if you can? Your entire claim rests on you pretending you can make objective claims about suffering. What you actually know is you specifically resent life, don't appreciate the gift. Then you try to make that objective and general by using the supposed suffering of others to bolster your own resentment and unreasoned seething.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                I condemn the world, not life. Big difference. The rest of your post is of no interest. Good day

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >I condemn the world, not life
                Instead of correctly identifying the issue with you, you blame the world, the process that gave you life. You only know yourself but project your "evil" on everything.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      t.

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      "You'll eat bits of glass for supper and you'll be bloody grateful, little BILLY," yelled the old man, swaying this way and that from the effects of the gin.

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        We're not talking about a man offering Billy glass to eat. We're talking about the source of everything including Billy. You implicitly appeal to the health of Billy as the highest good in this post, a thing created by the thing you want to call malevolent.

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          >a thing created by the thing you want to call malevolent.
          You first need to find some substantial proofs to offer some kind of basis to the assertion that the Hebrew version of God/s and the 'world / origin of things' is accurate.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            >You first need to find some substantial proofs
            No. Your points apply to every formulation of a source for everything which all logical descriptions require. You're claiming you know the source is not "benevolent". That logic dictates so but then you don't offer any logic, just petty appeals to your base desires.

            • 7 days ago
              Anonymous

              >your base desires.
              Not at all; I merely notice that the Hebrew culture was the least qualified to be taken seriously on the matter, given their miserable state when they were found by the Romans.

              A few cardinal points can be summarized:
              1) the Hebrew God is an obvious fiction (garden of eden story) to have created humans and been ignorant of how their brains worked
              2) the Hebrew God is an obvious 'stupid' fiction written by dumb beasts (again, garden of eden) to have written a character for God which hates and punishes humans when humans express a desire to "tell right from wrong"
              3) Genital mutilation of your own sons or stoning your kids for 'disobeying you' (you might be a drunkard, for example) and conflating 'this evil' with Virtue is one of the most twisted things of all; to have made Virtue into a Vice and Vice into a Virtue.

              actually those two alone were enough to convince me,the third is more academic perhaps - but more practical really.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Not at all
                The argument against "evil" appeals to your base desires as an arbiter of good.
                Criticisms of the history of Hebrews have nothing to do with these arguments or anything, they're examples of blatant propaganda and the fact that you can't think in any other terms than associative conditioning. The relevant logical concept to the argument comes from Greeks.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >the fact that you can't think in any other terms than associative conditioning.
                haha i just don't have time to write you a 50 page essay on the subjects, I gave you three solid points for you to refute; if you're right then it's easy to prove you're right.

                It comes down again to nothing overly complicated; you see a deranged man beating his son to death, he tries to justify it using some toilet paper theology from the bronze age, and you smile and go on your way, thinking it's all Gods Will.

                Better to just cut the mans throat, I think.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                You made some claims based on a million unfounded assumptions and deliberate blatant demonizing which reveal your nature as a product of propaganda. Those claims have nothing to do with anything you said previously about le problem of evil so you're completely incoherent.
                >It comes down again to nothing overly complicated
                It comes down to you thinking your braindead simple analogies accounting for completely unrelated things. The only way to formalize this story you're presenting as an argument is an appeal to base desires as an arbiter of what is good.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                see:

                >Criticisms of the history of Hebrews have nothing to do with these arguments
                They actually do; if you're a Christian or a Muslim you're forced to take seriously the entire Hebrew corpus, as if it were not only as sober and philosophical as anything else but that it, unlike anything else, is 'divine truth', then you look at reality through that lens and ind yourself doing obviously terrible shit like advocating (what you were advocating earlier; if you're the same person).

                [...] et al.

                to which I replied, [...]

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                > braindead simple analogies
                Yes, you even agree that what you advocated is stupid when you read it back, don't you? It's not only stupid but 'so obviously' stupid,

                >"let the criminal stab you!"
                >"don't stop him when he's robbing you!"

                The reality is that yourposition is anti-logos in the extreme; you find yourself not on the side of logic and rationality because you refuse to admit that your adopted theology is in error not only in foundation but in day-to-day practice. If it's in error then it doesnt come from any God. If it's portraying God as evil and hating wisdom (again, as the eden story does, as the OT does) then it's obviously not a truthful report about the creator of humans or the creator of anything at all.

                As Voltaire said, "to commit evil, one must first believ in absurdities"
                (i.e. to not even think the evil 'is' evil)

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Yes, you even agree that what you advocated is stupid when you read it back, don't you? It's not only stupid but 'so obviously' stupid,
                It's impossible to discuss any subject with you unless the root issues are resolved. Do you actually tell yourself dishonesty like I quoted here is helpful? You know it's dishonest but you tell yourself this dishonesty serves some kind of rhetorical purpose. What do you think that purpose is other than making sure none of your claims can ever be really sincerely engaged with so you never really have to think?
                >braindead rant about garden of eden to condition negative associations, no hint of reason to be found anywhere
                The arguments against evil apply to any imaginable source of the world, no matter what perspective you adopt. In every single case they're just as mindless. There's nothing behind these statements except vague resentment against your own life.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >You know it's dishonest
                Okay, if you're not the person who was saying that earlier then I apologize.

                Still, my other points stand and you have not refuted them. If you were able to you would have done in the reply I am replying to now.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Still, my other points stand
                There's no hint of any points. Learn how to think, read history. If you want to criticize ideas at least get a surface level of their history and what people actually think they mean and why people relate to them. Stop spreading transparent anti-reason propaganda and undermining all hope of dialogue on any subject.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                Again, I made a few cases; you haven't refuted or responded to them, and your last few replies have been deflective in nature.

                Obviously I am not the one under the influence of,
                > transparent anti-reason propaganda
                nor am I the one,
                >undermining all hope of dialogue on any subject.
                whilst objectively surely I am not the one who needs to,
                > Learn how to think, read history

                Explain to me why it's Virtuous to engage in various Vices 'if' the Vices have been ticked as "totally holy!" in some old barbarian 'holy' book.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Obviously
                Why is it fucking "obvious" you mindless golem? Because you have direct access to unassailable divine truth though your dogma?
                I'm actually making logical arguments for why you're spreading anti-reason propaganda but you can't process any of it.
                The only thing you can process is associative conditioning, like a dog. That's also the only way you know how to communicate.
                >obviously
                How fucked in the head can you be?
                >Explain to me why it's Virtuous to engage in various Vices
                This is an appeal to traditions based on a book to criticize that book. The absolute lack of any hint of thought will echo through time forever. People like you will always be remembered as the most mindless group that has ever existed and will ever exist. You are peak human decay and stupidity, that's quite an accomplishment.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >you mindless golem
                > The absolute lack of any hint of thought will echo through time forever. People like you will always be remembered as the most mindless group that has ever existed and will ever exist. You are peak human decay and stupidity, that's quite an accomplishment.
                oh, anon. You'll figure it out one day, I'm sure.

                roma invicta.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                As if the petty basic shit that motivates your dribble and makes you so willing to swallow and promote propaganda wasn't completely obvious. You're not just a stereotype, you're all complete clones of each other. You don't just just appeal to the same propaganda points, you use the same exact words repeated over and over to reinforce the conditioning. You intuitively feel the lessening of the effect when you don't so you always make sure to add the same emotionally charged propaganda as spice to any statement about anything.
                You retards and the trannies are the same. There really is no difference at all.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous
              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Okay, if you're not the person who was saying that earlier then I apologize.
                I have no idea if I am or not. I suspect even this line is dishonest. You're pure decay, complete subversion embodied.

                rant about garden of eden to condition negative associations, no hint of reason to be found anywhere
                lol wht I 'mean' by that braindead rant on my part is that without Yahweh you would not hold any of these current positions in your head at all. You would not be thinking any of this, is that not accurate, then, to say that the Hebrews invented this theology - since you are defending it, after all, seemingly unaware of that fact.

                >without Yahweh you would not hold any of these current positions in your head at all
                Another braindead assumption based on propaganda that doesn't even coherently fit into the discussion if I give it to you as true, which it's not. I approached "Yahweh" from the side of logic, from the Greek ideas that are actually relevant when you try to say anything about the "problem of evil". I accepted the relevance of the Hebrew scholarly tradition after.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >I approached "Yahweh" from the side of logic
                Well then you're at St Pauls position when he's sitting in Malta realizing that it is fucking impossible to "be good" in accordance with the religion when the religion describes evil, petty-minded and viceful actions as "the noblest form of virtue."

                To return to the topic, this is entirely the problem of evil within the judeo-christian dogmas; they claim god is a dumb-minded idiot who hates intelligence.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >it is fucking impossible to "be good"
                Yes a basic premise of the fallen world. God is good, you and everything you do is flawed.
                >when the religion describes evil, petty-minded and viceful actions as "the noblest form of virtue."
                Retarded appeal to the religion to criticize the religion.
                >they claim god is a dumb-minded idiot who hates intelligence.
                Another incoherent claim based on nothing attempting to deploy mindless associative conditioning.
                I'm apparently one of these people you make all these claims about what they actually believe and I don' believe any of the shit you attribute to me. Nobody I knows or have even read about does.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                oh ffs alright, ONE LAST REPLY from me,

                >Retarded appeal to the religion to criticize the religion.
                i.e. pointing out the errors 'in' the religion, is what you just acknowledged here.

                >Yes a basic premise of the fallen world.
                Or Paul was strugglig with insane Hebrew dogmas.

                >Yes a basic premise of the fallen world.
                A 'fallen world' due tot he garden of eden story, see:

                rant about garden of eden to condition negative associations, no hint of reason to be found anywhere
                lol wht I 'mean' by that braindead rant on my part is that without Yahweh you would not hold any of these current positions in your head at all. You would not be thinking any of this, is that not accurate, then, to say that the Hebrews invented this theology - since you are defending it, after all, seemingly unaware of that fact.

                where humans are 'damned' because humans desired to avoid evil and know how to be good; you do believe in the hebrew theology, you see? If you think the world is fallen then this is also why you think it 'is' fallen, and you get this from hebrew theology. duh.

                Still,

                >Obviously
                Why is it fucking "obvious" you mindless golem? Because you have direct access to unassailable divine truth though your dogma?
                I'm actually making logical arguments for why you're spreading anti-reason propaganda but you can't process any of it.
                The only thing you can process is associative conditioning, like a dog. That's also the only way you know how to communicate.
                >obviously
                How fucked in the head can you be?
                >Explain to me why it's Virtuous to engage in various Vices
                This is an appeal to traditions based on a book to criticize that book. The absolute lack of any hint of thought will echo through time forever. People like you will always be remembered as the most mindless group that has ever existed and will ever exist. You are peak human decay and stupidity, that's quite an accomplishment.

                to me why it's Virtuous to engage in various Vices
                >This is an appeal to traditions based on a book to criticize that book.

                Explain to me why it's Virtuous to engage in various Vices.

                I won't reply again if you don't address anything asked of you.

                I missed this reply, whoops,

                Using the word because doesn't establish a causal relationship.
                I'm not arguing based on any specific religious dogma or to bolster any religion. I'm only talking about logic, the Greek thing you're incapable of using on any level.
                Your only type of argumentation is by conditioned association because that's how you think. X is bad because conditioning has associated X with bad poopoo. To communicate the "thoughts" you just list bad poopoo things next to X.

                >I'm only talking about logic, the Greek thing
                Then begin using logic. I'm only seeing Pathos from you, nothing of Logos.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >i.e. pointing out the errors 'in' the religion, is what you just acknowledged here.
                Appealing to the conclusions of a scholarly tradition to criticize the conclusions of that tradition. No hint of logic, not even actually pointing out perceived inconsistencies.
                >A 'fallen world' due tot he garden of eden story
                Here "good" is the behavior consistent with premises established by the tradition being discussed as good. It's a different context, you ignore all meaning, you don't care what anything means. All that matters is promoting the divine truth that's already been revealed to you through propaganda.
                >Explain to me why it's Virtuous to engage in various Vices.
                It isn't. Why are you unable to understand what you're doing? What's wrong with your brain?
                >Then begin using logic
                This is the core issue. None of the actual issues we're supposedly discussing are really relevant because you can't reason, recognize reason or distinguish between reason and propaganda. I've tried to help you figure it out. What's stopping you? Why can't you present even a single thought where one thing follows from the other instead of just using vague associations?

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >>Then begin using logic
                >This is the core issue. None of the actual issues we're supposedly discussing are really relevant because you can't reason, recognize reason or distinguish between reason and propaganda.
                I don't think so; e.g. if I responded with a positive comment to any random thing you'd said you'd immediately praise me for my great intellect. This is just bias confirmation on your part; clouding your own examination of the subjects we're - well, I'm - trying to discuss with you.

                to me why it's Virtuous to engage in various Vices.
                >It isn't.
                So allowing people to be hurt is 'not' anymore a great thing because of it being the "will of god" that they get mugged or stabbed by some random person who I might easily stop from doing such a thing?

                >>A 'fallen world' due tot he garden of eden story
                >Here "good" is the behavior consistent with premises established by the tradition being discussed as good. It's a different context,
                Well, no, there is objective demosntrable good; things which help others, and then there is demonstrable bad; like stabbing them in the face repeatedly. I was refering to the inversion of Virtue and Vice in the Judeo-Christian (and Islamic) theologies; where evil actions are portrayed as being pleasing to God - and where the character of God is described as being susceptible to petty-vices; jealously for example.

                Even, I would argue, you not understanding right from wrong is due to your religion; e.g. you cannot understand right from wrong because you believe Evil is Good because your holy books tell you that God is Evil and approves of ignorance.

                Ignorance, also, in context, is akin 'to' evil; as a person not knowing right from wrong can, e.g. stab in the face and be oblivious to the pain it causes the person they're stabbing - mental retardation, i.e.

                >Appealing to the conclusions of a scholarly tradition to criticize the conclusions of that tradition.
                again, pointing out the errors 'in' the religion, is what you just acknowledged here. Can you explain what the fuck you mean by this? How is calling out hypocrisy 'wrong'?

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >I don't think so; e.g. if I responded with a positive comment to any random thing you'd said you'd immediately praise me for my great intellect.
                Why? How do you know. This is a good example of the lack of reason. You just state these associations you have as factual, divine truth revealed to you directly with no thinking needed.
                >This is just bias
                Why does this bias only kick in against specific retards? I've argued about these issues with people for decades and I have no issue with actual arguments that apparently conflict with what I believe. In fact there are few things I like more than finding them, that's why my position has changed over the years and I'm not in any sense a "materialist" anymore.
                I've explained to you some of the differences between how you communicate and how a reasonable person thinks. You don't process any of it and just keep reaching into your bag of conditioned associations.

                Start engaging with these issues necessary for you to continue discussing any subject for continuing.
                I can be pretty sure that in your life you have some seriously miserable issues if this is how you actually think in general about other subjects. There's no chance you're competent in any subject and you can't see any ways to improve, every day must be absolute misery, like hell on earth.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >You just state these associations you have as factual
                I base it on prediction from experience, I suppose, e.g. I have observed (this thing) so I know exactly what will happen if (I do that). Are you sure you want to test me on this? I may have replied to you earlier with this point-to-prove in mind, praising you for this purpose, and you may have replied back, praising me for my great intellect.

                I'm just saying.

                >bias
                yep still bias.

                Also, again, you didn't respond to any of the other points made so I'm done with this, it's gotten boring and repetitive, despite warning you about it. See ya.

                >i was saying that "in favor" of the gnostic elements
                i know, but you said "less populist", which i'm not sure i agree that gnosticism isn't populism. In the regions where gnosticism flourished, it was extremely populist, meaning it wasn't "elitist" at all, but was widespread throughout the entire population.
                But then in other regions where the catholic church dominated, gnosticism wasn't very populist, since the catholics had brainwashed the peasants into following along with their version.

                but anyways, we're on the same page here don't worry. We both seem to not care about the religious trappings and just focus more on the behavior, and in that sense i too can respect the gnostics more than other religious sects because they actually practiced what they preached (even to the point of allowing themselves to be genocided for their beliefs, just like Jesus allowed himself to be killed).

                >it was extremely populist, meaning it wasn't "elitist" at all,
                ah good point, I may have misphrased what I meant; I mean to differentiate the 'pseudo-populism' of fat people standing up in gold and white clothing and making pleasant noises to an audience, from actually popular and liked personages who were without the bling and were absent of the hypocrisy:

                the first benedictine working-monks vs. the lazy greedy papal extortionists, for example.

                >since the catholics had brainwashed the peasants into following along with their version.
                since the consequences of an unworkable ideology causes terrible social problems which cannot be admitted to by that elite which then necessitates their invention of scapegoat to blame for their own criminality or ineptitude.

                > (even to the point of allowing themselves to be genocided for their beliefs, just like Jesus allowed himself to be killed).
                Maybe. I get the impression they were not unlike the St. Basils and St. Benedicts; they had good ideas and wanted to help people,but they had to put it in a religious framework to avoid being burned or punished for doing something good.

                It's a pretty jaded view I hold, admittedly, but it does offer a rationale for the notion of demos ourgos (e.g. demagogues leading the public to harm) as a pernicious thing quite outside of later theology.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                Hey retard the problem has already been solved stop arguing

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                rant about garden of eden to condition negative associations, no hint of reason to be found anywhere
                lol wht I 'mean' by that braindead rant on my part is that without Yahweh you would not hold any of these current positions in your head at all. You would not be thinking any of this, is that not accurate, then, to say that the Hebrews invented this theology - since you are defending it, after all, seemingly unaware of that fact.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Criticisms of the history of Hebrews have nothing to do with these arguments
                They actually do; if you're a Christian or a Muslim you're forced to take seriously the entire hebrew corpus, as if it were not only as sober and philosophical s anything else but that it, unlike anything else, is 'divine truth', then you look at realty through that lens and ind yourself doing obviously terrible shit like advocating (what you were advocating earlier; if you're the same person).

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >unlike anything else, is 'divine truth'
                What do you think this means? Why can't you even consider different approaches and perspectives? You're projecting because you don't grasp the idea of understanding something without accepting it, you're the one that thinks he has the absolute divine unassailable truth.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Criticisms of the history of Hebrews have nothing to do with these arguments
                They actually do; if you're a Christian or a Muslim you're forced to take seriously the entire Hebrew corpus, as if it were not only as sober and philosophical as anything else but that it, unlike anything else, is 'divine truth', then you look at reality through that lens and ind yourself doing obviously terrible shit like advocating (what you were advocating earlier; if you're the same person).

                >You're advocating to open yourself up to the abuse from scrawny creatures armed with sticks and stones, to 'allow' them to overpower you, steal your things, burn your house, rape and eat your family, etc., when these are barbarians who would run from you at the first sign of violence on your part.
                Yes. You're missing a crucial dynamic: If you show mercy the rest of the world will turn on these roving mauraders. This is how martyrdom works because you are never a martyr in isolation and thus the martyr becomes a martyr in context. Forgiveness happens in context. If you don't approach the world with this grace then everything is a method of useless self-defense. All of your loved ones died. Your money leaves you when you're dead. Have you tried stealing from a church? Do you think they'll come after you to put you in jail? No. So why not steal? Because you know everyone else will view you horribly and that will be your real punishment. You have to remember that if you play a boardgame and someone cheats and you're alone and you let them cheat they'll probably win and cheat. If you never do anything they'll stop cheating, more or less maybe, but if you are in a room and they notice that your opponent cheats and you forgive then they throw your opponent out and leave you be. If you were to fight and make a scene you'd both be thrown out. Keep in mind, this isn't encouraging silence but forgiveness.

                et al.

                to which I replied,

                >If this grain of truth doesn't stupify, horrify, and leave you in eternal awe I'd be surprised. The ordinary person should operate like this for thieves, albeit not for rape
                That's demented though; a state or community like that, let's say if it operated on this principle, would be basically dog food for the lowest of wandering retards to steal from; i.e. paying taxes for a police force only to have the police force smile and wave when the raiders arrive, helping them rob you, etc.

                Okay, refer back to the 'aggrandizement of evil' I mentioned; [...] this is exactly it,

                You're advocating to open yourself up to the abuse from scrawny creatures armed with sticks and stones, to 'allow' them to overpower you, steal your things, burn your house, rape and eat your family, etc., when these are barbarians who would run from you at the first sign of violence on your part.

                The notion of pacficism is high-minded,yes, but it's deeply misplaced and does no good in these kind of scenarios.

                You say,
                > albeit not for rape because the body hosts the soul, but for theft for sure.
                but when you give up on the idea of defending yourself (we don't need to discuss proactively hunting down and putting in chains the vikings or cannibals to prevent them from doing any harm at all) then you dont have that option to tell them "no don't rape and eat my newborn baby" because you've allowed them into your hut to plunder your kitchenware in the first place, having decided not to ambush and kill them beforehand.

                Then, robbed,homeless and crying over a pile of half-eaten bones, you say it's "the devil" who has done this to your family. No brah, it was 'you' because you failed to address the cause of the outcome that you suffered.

                This is a good subject though lol i can't believe I found someone to argue this with(!)

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >They actually do
                Then you go ahead and make no attempt to demonstrate this. You don't grasp how to string together premises to reach a conclusion, you have no clue how to think about any subject.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Then you go ahead and make no attempt to demonstrate this.
                ... I did in the words that came next, did your brain just shutdown or something?

                I said, here:

                >Criticisms of the history of Hebrews have nothing to do with these arguments
                They actually do; if you're a Christian or a Muslim you're forced to take seriously the entire Hebrew corpus, as if it were not only as sober and philosophical as anything else but that it, unlike anything else, is 'divine truth', then you look at reality through that lens and ind yourself doing obviously terrible shit like advocating (what you were advocating earlier; if you're the same person).

                [...] et al.

                to which I replied, [...]

                They actually do (because) if you're a Christian or a Muslim you're forced to take seriously the entire Hebrew corpus, as if it were not only as sober and philosophical as anything else but that it, unlike anything else, is 'divine truth', then you look at reality through that lens and ind yourself doing obviously terrible shit like advocating (what you were advocating earlier; if you're the same person).

                >Demiurge = political impulse
                the interesting thing that defines gnostic sects is how non-political they are. Every other religion immediately seeks to unite itself with government (whichever form that gov't takes) and seeks to establish itself as the "one true religion" and then persecute other religions with the help of the gov't, and in return the gov't is strengthened too.
                but gnosticism is more about a withdrawal from political life, it's more akin to taoism in that respect; just fucking off to a forest and living your life in peace.

                But to governments (and therefore, to demiurgic religions too) this sort of non-political belief system is harmful to itself, since politics/gov't requires "fuel" so to speak, in order to operate. It *needs* people to be involved, whether that be just to fight and die/kill in wars, or to rule over others, or even just leading a "normal" life and giving birth to lots of children that can then be used by gov't's for wars, or just more taxes.

                That's why gov't's and demiurgic religions always persecute gnostics so heavily (even the taoists were heavily persecuted by Confucionists). They can't just leave gnostics alone and in peace, because gnosticism essentially depletes the potential power of a demiurgic gov't/religion, and these people are obsessed with power.

                It's why even centuries after the genocide of the gnostics, you'll still see extreme anti-gnostic animosity from people in gnostic threads. As if gnosticism is somehow a "threat".

                >As if gnosticism is somehow a "threat".
                I am intrigued by this part as well. I don't for a moment take their religious or god claims seriously either, but there is something 'better' about them because of this; more "real" less populist you know?

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                Using the word because doesn't establish a causal relationship.
                I'm not arguing based on any specific religious dogma or to bolster any religion. I'm only talking about logic, the Greek thing you're incapable of using on any level.
                Your only type of argumentation is by conditioned association because that's how you think. X is bad because conditioning has associated X with bad poopoo. To communicate the "thoughts" you just list bad poopoo things next to X.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >more "real" less populist
                not sure about the populist part. The demiurgic core, the people that actually benefit the most from the demiurgic religio-governmental system, are actually a rather small elite comparatively. Which in that sense is very anti-populist. Just because this small elite is able to trick the masses into following along with their lies doesn't make it populist.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >. Just because this small elite is able to trick the masses into following along with their lies doesn't make it populist.
                Who, the Cathars and Bogomils? I was saying that "in favor" of the gnosticky elements, that I find their religion as baseless as the Hebrews but that I can respect them far more due to their more truthful nature; the cathar perfecte, for instance.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >i was saying that "in favor" of the gnostic elements
                i know, but you said "less populist", which i'm not sure i agree that gnosticism isn't populism. In the regions where gnosticism flourished, it was extremely populist, meaning it wasn't "elitist" at all, but was widespread throughout the entire population.
                But then in other regions where the catholic church dominated, gnosticism wasn't very populist, since the catholics had brainwashed the peasants into following along with their version.

                but anyways, we're on the same page here don't worry. We both seem to not care about the religious trappings and just focus more on the behavior, and in that sense i too can respect the gnostics more than other religious sects because they actually practiced what they preached (even to the point of allowing themselves to be genocided for their beliefs, just like Jesus allowed himself to be killed).

  21. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    cool it with the antisemitism.

  22. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Gnosticism is the only good answer to everything, but not dualistic Gnosticism, which is cringe.

  23. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    one thing i don't understand, from the point of view of Judaism (not gnosticism) is why they claim that their god is pure good and that he doesn't need anything at all from humans, and yet REQUIRES blood sacrifices, and massive amounts of blood.
    You can't say it's because of "sin", because there are large chunks of time where the israelites weren't sacrificing any blood.
    And how is the sacrifice of animals okay for the israelites to do it, but it's somehow wrong when all the other semitic cultures do the same thing?
    And why even bother atoning for sin when even when you do, (the israeli) god still is mad over something and sends evil against you (plagues, famines, foreign armies, etc.) anyways? What's the point of the blood sacrifices, which are supposed to make you on god's good side again, if they don't work?

    it really sounds like he's a vampire spirit and just wants blood and war to satiate his neverending appetite

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      You don't try to understand. You're dishonest. There are lots of guides that explain these things but you only like the summaries provided for atheistic/communist propaganda purposes.

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        >you don't try to understand.
        i wouldn't have typed out my post if what you said was true.
        i'd love to have an explanation for why a purely good and loving god of justice and virtue REQUIRES massive amounts of blood, even though he at the same time doesn't need anything (because he's self-sufficient, being God and all)

        Like, why couldn't he be satisfied with bread cakes, or incense sticks? Those are nice and they both give off really nice scents.
        At least Christianity did away with blood sacrifices, so that's cool, but israelites are still killing animals

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      If you examine it carefully, you'll see they are projecting their own petty human and israeli traits onto God. Examining the israeli view of God is one of the best ways to understand the israeli mind.

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        You're not that far from how mainstream Christian scholars describe it. The foundation myth of Israel in the Bible for example is about their pettiness indirectly bearing fruit that isn't petty or low. Compared to the natural and vital hunter that just exists and thrives the scholar is a sickly degenerate desperately struggling to make something happen. The scholar still produces more wide ranging products.

        >you don't try to understand.
        i wouldn't have typed out my post if what you said was true.
        i'd love to have an explanation for why a purely good and loving god of justice and virtue REQUIRES massive amounts of blood, even though he at the same time doesn't need anything (because he's self-sufficient, being God and all)

        Like, why couldn't he be satisfied with bread cakes, or incense sticks? Those are nice and they both give off really nice scents.
        At least Christianity did away with blood sacrifices, so that's cool, but israelites are still killing animals

        >i'd love to have an explanation
        For a framing I made up or heard from propaganda while ignoring all the actual meaning the scholars of the tradition I'm criticizing assign to it.
        The world demands blood, most of the points you mindlessly criticize are descriptive not prescriptive. You don't actually disagree with what's being said, just the strawmen you made up to fuel your resentful seething.

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          >the world demands blood
          the "world"? or God? Is God "the world"? Or is God separate from the world?

          >strawmen
          it's a little bit early to be throwing out the "strawmen" defense. I asked a question about blood sacrifice in general, and you're immediately leaping to "strawmen". So far, your only attempt at an explanation is "world demands blood", which is... kinda vague. Would you care to expand on that? Why does the world demand blood?
          Your automatic assumption that i'm some "atheist/communist" is a legit case of strawmen too, btw, i'm neither, and you're trying to evade having to answer the riddle of blood-sacrifice by just labeling me an atheist/communist.

          So then. Why does a God who is perfect and self-sufficient, require massive amounts of blood? Why does he like the smell of blood?

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            >the "world"? or God?
            I'll give you an example of an interpretation that incorporates a historical perspective.
            The world which is an expression of the source which is the Father. Early judaism was polytheistic, the conceptualized the highest god as a wargod. Influenced by Persian Zoroastrianism and related Greek philosophy parts of the ideas from the polytheistic tradition are merged with the new ideas. They didn't conceive of a prime mover but that's what they're referencing in a flawed way with the polytheistic idea of a supreme wargod that demands blood.
            >it's a little bit early to be throwing out the "strawmen" defense
            Then you don't understand what you're doing at all. It's a pure strawman. You don't reference any actual relevant interpretations of the text, just a strawman constructed specifically to undermine any hope of understanding these ancient texts.
            >Why does the world demand blood?
            We don't know the mind of God. You do know from experience the world demands blood. According to the mythology humans chose alienation from omnipotence, experiencing adversity and death. This is what we chose, God is unchanging. What you do doesn't actually affect God, it affects you and your relationship with God. God speaks to us through revelation like your entire experience is revealed to you.

            • 7 days ago
              Anonymous

              >human free will can delimit divine omnipotence
              Laugh riot. Half the this thread is filled with fucking retards who need to read get back to the basics and read

              No, only Schelling has a good answer.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >human free will can delimit divine omnipotence
                I didn't actually say that. Alienation from omnipotence happened even if you can call that distinction illusory. All secular attempts to describe it still end up needing an account for that.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >human free will can delimit divine omnipotence
                >in an illusory way
                Bro just give it up. It's over. There is no ruleset an all-good God has to play nice with, or else he's not omnipotent. Just take the gnosticpill already. God is all-good but powerless in the World. Or go full Zoroastrian if you like your dualism militant. Anything but this namby pamby "God violates my soul with phenomena so I can miss him more" bullshit. The Acamoth is being raped on the funeral pyre.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >There is no ruleset an all-good God has to play nice with, or else he's not omnipotent
                I never claimed God is limited. Elaborate on why you think I'm saying that.
                >gnostic
                >God is all good but still produces "evil".
                Your worldview has the issue you're pretending you're solving while the original one doesn't.
                I love the world, I love the gift of my life with everything in it. You hate your life and can't deal with it. That's all you're saying.

            • 7 days ago
              Anonymous

              oh boy, where to start.
              >Early judaism was polytheistic.
              correct. But then later morphed into monotheistic... so why should we ascribe to the viewpoint of people that can't even stick to their own ideology, how do we know they won't just morph again when it suits them?
              >supreme wargod that demands blood.
              Which conflicts with the belief that god is a loving and good god.

              >pure strawman.
              No, it's not. I asked why blood sacrifice is required of a god that supposedly doesn't need anything. That's called A QUESTION. And only now, 3-4 posts later, have you started to attempt to answer it. You don't need to accuse everyone of strawman, you can just answer a simple question instead. Just fyi.
              >you don't reference any actual relevant interpretations of the text.
              Why do i need to? Everyone who has read the OT knows what i'm talking about in regards to the blood sacrifices. Everyone who has studied comparative mythology/religion knows that there is extremely little (or even nothing) that separates Judaism from any of the other ancient religions of the time that also had blood sacrifice rituals. So why is israelite blood sacrifice religion "good", but Canaanite/Phoenician blood sacrifice "unholy"?

              >We don't know the mind of God.
              >but here, let me tell you why blood sacrifice is necessary even though i admittedly don't know God's mind and i'm just claiming to know how to worship God correctly.
              You btfo yourself and don't even realize. It's kinda amusing if it wasn't so tiresome.
              >you do know from experience the world demands blood.
              Do i know that? I know that ancient religions practiced blood sacrifice, and i know that Judaism is no different while at the same time claiming to be different. Or are you referring to something different by your statement that "world demands blood"?
              >God is unchanging.
              Then why do the religions that claim to know him keep changing? LOL

              >what do you doesn't actually affect God
              so God doesn't need blood sacrifices. But that still doesn't explain why he enjoys the smell of blood.
              >your relationship with God
              you claim that humans can't know God, but then at the same time claim to know God's mind and how he interacts with people.

              I have to admit, the gnostics really seem to be onto something.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >so why should we ascribe to the viewpoint of people that can't even stick to their own ideology
                You sincerely don't notice any of your hidden assumptions? Are you really this programmed?
                >Which conflicts with the belief that god is a loving and good god.
                Repeating your original assumption without even trying to justify it.
                >I asked
                You gave a long list of assumptions based on nothing and demanded someone else justified them. Why should anyone else justify and argue for your own fantasies?
                >Why do i need to?
                You're sincerely asking why you would need to have any idea what "sacrifice" means to a group of people to understand what their text about sacrifices means to them?
                >Do i know that?
                If you're honest. If you're a propagandist like I predicted you will never related anything I say to anything I'm trying to reference. You will deliberately undermine all attempts at understanding anything like you did from the start and are doing in this post.
                >Then why do the religions that claim to know him keep changing
                If you ask anyone that adheres to the religion they'll tell you he doesn't change and elaborate on all these ideas like what a relationship with God means. You don't even try to understand, you just try to undermine.
                >then at the same time claim to know God's mind and how he interacts with people
                I know things like logic which can point to certain conclusions, in this context we were talking about a certain mythology and perspective to frame the world. I don't "know" anything and you know that, you're just finding any way to avoid looking at any meaning referenced. Staring at the finger pointing at the moon instead of the moon.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >you don't notice any of your hidden assumptions.
                that's rich coming from the guy that resorts to "how dare you question God who gave us the capacity to question things but demands we not question him" any time he gets backed into a corner. Are you really this programmed that you can't even entertain the thought that you've been lied to by demiurgic satanists your entire life? 🙂 Why do you think you're infallible and unable to be fooled?

                >you gave a long list of assumptions based on nothing and demanded someone else justified them.
                i didn't demand, i asked a question to the judaic crowd (let's be honest, we all know israelites practically live on the internet) and sure enough, someone responded. There was no demand, just an open question that anyone was free to attempt to respond to.
                Leaping to "strawman" anytime someone even asks a question as simple as "why are bloodsacrifices necessary" is typical israeli tactics.
                >i don't "know" anything
                >but here is why you should listen to me and the israelites.
                Nah, i think you're possessed by vampiric demons, all evidence points to that. You're claiming blood sacrifice is a good thing... that's evil. You can fuck off now, israelite.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >coming from the guy that resorts to "how dare you question God
                Everything you say is dishonest. Do you think it serve you somehow? Do you think it's useful?
                >i didn't demand
                You presented it as a logical hurdle, as if logic demands an answer so that you can move forward. There's no hurdle, you just don't want to learn.
                >why are bloodsacrifices necessary
                Nobody can answer that question sincerely because the framing isn't sincere. I don't know what you think the words mean and you don't want to know what any of the word means. If you did you wouldn't try to dishonestly demonize everything like a textbook propagandist before you even begin discussing any of it.
                >You're claiming blood sacrifice is a good thing
                I'm claiming you don't know what any of the words you use relate to and don't want to know. What does "sacrifice" mean and how does it relate to every day life?

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >everything you say is dishonest.
                Oh? Give an example? I said israelites practice blood sacrifice rituals. And they do. I said Phoenicians and Canaanites practiced blood sacrifice rituals, and they did. I said that israelites claim their rituals were good, but Canaanite rituals were bad (even though they're the same rituals).
                So where's the lie? be specific.

                >you presented it as a logical hurdle. There's no hurdle.
                So we're just supposed to practice blood sacrifice and not question or try to understand it at all? Just comply because ... fuck it, just COMPLY.
                and somehow that makes me the NPC, and not you? LMAO

                >Nobody can answer the question of why blood sacrifice is necessary. The framing of the question isn't sincere. Just comply, stop questioning. Be an NPC like me, and COMPLY.
                nah, i'll ask questions. The demiurge clearly gave us the ability to question things, so he must want us to question things. The demiurge doesn't want robots that just comply with things like an npc, he wants people to question and learn and come to understand. You're disobeying the demiurge by simply complying.

                you're a israelite that worships a vampire.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Oh? Give an example?
                The example is quoted. You already knew this so this question is another example of dishonesty.
                >where's the lie?
                It's true that all people at the time did all kinds of things I would now consider unproductive. That's not what you've been saying, that's part of what you use for the dishonest framing. Presenting what you said as simply stating that people killed each other a lot in the past and asking me to point out the lie in that while ignoring everything you actually said is another example of dishonesty.
                >So we're just supposed to practice blood sacrifice and not question or try to understand it at all?
                What blood sacrifices are Christians telling you to take part in and not question? You don't relate anything to anything real, it's all in your head.
                >nah, i'll ask questions
                You're not asking sincere questions. You're promoting propaganda. If you really and sincerely don't understand that then study how propaganda, conditioning and dogma actually works.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >the example is quoted.
                What's wrong with questioning god? Didn't Jacob (or was it Isaac?) wrestle with an Angel?
                the fact that you just AUTOMATICALLY accept anything you're told makes you an npc.

                >you're promoting propaganda
                i have my own views, yes. Just as you do. You're promoting israeli propaganda, i'm questioning your views.

                It's hilarious how much gnostics scare you. You israelites had them massacred and still to this day quake in fear at the thought of gnosticism spreading.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >What's wrong with questioning god?
                Saying I'm telling you it's wrong to question is another example of dishonesty.
                It's not about automatically accepting anything. To accept a claim you first have to understand it. Much of what I argued is not something I even "accept". They're just ideas you're misrepresenting for propaganda purposes.
                >i have my own views
                No you don't. You have a fantasy based on nothing that relates to nothing. You make posts about how I'm demanding you commit blood sacrifices and stop questioning things. Those aren't your "views", they're lies or delusions.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >to accept a claim you first have to understand it.
                >much of what i argued i don't even "accept", i'm just arguing to argue.
                oh okay, you're just being a pilpul israelite.
                you can fuck off now 🙂

  24. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    The problem is you look at this image and see things in terms of the very personal "good" and "evil," instead of the impersonal and objective "weak" and "strong."

    Your perspective is the problem.

  25. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    I think that explaining the existence of the phenomenal world as some kind of privation, mistake, error, or catastrophe presents a more rational view of a benevolent God even if He has somehow allowed such a schism to occur

    The idea that God actively set about making this world and all of the utterly unhappy creatures within it, and thought that doing this was a good thing, becomes more and more reprehensible the further it's thought out; to seriously affirm that God considers human trafficking, children dying of cancer, sex slaves being kidnapped and raped to death, and millions of families being genocided to be necessary for the purposes of some nebulous "greater good" or equally unfathomable eschatological plot - and to bow before this deity in spite of it - is functionally equivalent to worshipping an arch-fiend, a monstrous demon of infinite malignity whose sheer depravity and malevolent intent makes Moloch look like an angel

    Ivan Karamazov was right to consider the "God needs evil to bring about a greater good" excuse to be pernicious twaddle

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      The implications become even more horrifying when you add hell into the mix, and notions like St. Augustine's massa damnata. The idea that an omnibenevolent God decided to create the world knowing that it would lead to most of his creatures being subjected to unimaginable levels of pain for eternity is so terrifying that if someone were to convince me that it's true I would honestly go mad like the protagonists of Lovecraft's stories, with the difference that I wouldn't even be able to kill myself to escape such horrors.

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        this.
        I've heard many people say that God created the world as a "soul factory", that he wants more people in heaven with him, but that they have to be "free" and not just robots, hence why the world has to exist.
        but if that's the case, then creating a world where only 1% (or less) of the entire population gets to go to heaven is ... extremely poor management. Any factory manager that only produced 1% product and had 99% waste is extremely wasteful.

        which hints that the goal isn't to be a soul factory, but a loosh harvest. Because if the world is a loosh harvest factory, then suddenly it's working at maximum capacity with little to no "waste". Which, if you're a god, would make much more sense to also have a factory working as intended. Whereas the previous idea (the "world as soul factory" idea) doesn't make sense why god would create such an unproductive factory.

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          >I've heard many people say that God created the world as a "soul factory", that he wants more people in heaven with him

          Not exactly a “soul factory” but more so a company, consenting ones; not hostages.

          Certain media like End of Evangelion
          depicts a great truth of the human condition condition that could aid to what I'm about you drop, which is the fundamental loneliness of individuated beings. The Angels of the series are absolute beings, monads, but they suffer from a loneliness appropriate to their condition unimaginable to your species. To be One is to be Alone. Recall the only depiction of the interior of an Angel’s core being a placid, empty void that the main character experiences as an extremely powerful repulsive force that threatens the very fundament of his individuality. This is the original negativity of God, the singularity of divine madness, God-in-Himself that will not suffer the existence of anything Other than Himself. This Void eats away at all determinate being, at the same time God-as-Love gives forth life for the joy of that giving. God is at war with Himself. He is a Black Sun inside a White Sun, and vice-versa. His love is an effect of this agony of duality in Himself.

          In “End of Evangelion” the main character realizes his happiness cannot exist apart from actuality; that his happiness can only ever exist as the negation of the pain of bodily life, in bodily life. If he threw off the body and returned through the vulvic Door of Guf to the mankind’s primordial oneness with itself, he would also be released from everything that could possibly experience that joy to begin with. We find “End of Evangelion” as acute an understanding of the contradiction of existence as you are likely to find. Modems will tell you Shinji breaks down at the end only that time, and that he will pick himself up and dust himself off once he feels the surge of a newfound will-to-live. We Say: Shinji will find a new will-to-live, and he will live, but inside the tears will never stop flowing. Such is the Error of Time.

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        I would like to give the hardcore fundies and followers of the late Augustinian tradition (along with its deformed bastard children, the Calvinist denominations) the benefit of doubt and assume that they just haven't thoroughly considered what their beliefs actually entail, but it becomes difficult when a lot of them come across like they're actively getting off on the concept

        It really is almost Lovecraftian, as you say; when you add into the mix the responses (like several in this very thread) that God's logic and thought processes are so alien and incomprehensible to us that they might as well just be arbitrary nonsense, and that his sense of morality is completely different from ours, the image presented shifts very quickly from "Our Father who art in heaven" to "The Daemon Sultan Azathoth who babbles and gibbers in dark unlighted corridors beyond time and space"

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          kek. it's time to take the bakkerpill

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          The beginning of wisdom is fear of God.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            How can wisdom even be possible if God, literally the ultimate cause behind all reality, is so monstruously incomprehensible, indifferent and unpredictable?

            • 7 days ago
              Anonymous

              >how can you have good judgement when things are scawy?
              A good start is to try to account for things as they are and not as you wish they would be to maximize comfort or some other base desire.
              The apparent reality on the surface when you look at evolution or if you live subjugated to Rome is that God and the world is "cruel" as in ruthlessness dominates the world but it turns out it simply doesn't. The ruthless get short term petty gains for a lot of effort while the good receive eternal fruits.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >The apparent reality on the surface when you look at evolution or if you live subjugated to Rome is that God and the world is "cruel" as in ruthlessness dominates the world but it turns out it simply doesn't.
                Most people ending up in Hell is not an apparent reality. The Bible confirms it and has been the most common position amongst Saints and Doctors of the Church. That's God's endgame, that's somehow His "greater good". Now, if God is so detached from us regarding his morality, then who's to say that He can be trusted regarding the promises He made to us in Scripture? If God is morally unintelligible, and nothing is off limits for Him, then how can you trust that He is not a deceiver?

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >The Bible confirms it
                Not really

                >and has been the most common position amongst Saints and Doctors of the Church.
                What do the opinions of some guys in goofy hats have to do with God?

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. (Matthew 7:13-14)

                >Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’ “But he will answer, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’ But he will reply, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!’ (Luke 13:25-27)

  26. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    No.

  27. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    Buddhism deals with it quite deftly.

  28. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    Good and evil are dyadic, just like big and small or fast and slow; morality, size, and speed are all abstract objective conceptions which are comprised by two antonimical subjects that can only exist in relation to one another.

    So, God is the metaphysics of reality. You're all retards, and the gnostics were right.

    The world is both good and evil simultaneously and the one cannot exist without the other.

    >pic related, it's me

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      -->

      No, that's just the explanatory gap

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop

      Everything keeps leading to paradox or contradiction. Every argument for/against god, every argument for epistemology or math axioms. It just loops back to where it started

      I can't take it anymore

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      >God is the metaphysics of reality
      The logical underlying source of everything.
      >The world is both good and evil simultaneously
      You're defining them as categories relating to human experience. Things within those categories exist in the world but if you apply them to the source of everything it's good, unless your categories are stupid and the creator of a pot is evil because the pot can break, instead of being good for contributing.

  29. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    My only exposure to "gnosticism" has been neo-gnostics like PKD, mckenna, eliade, and corbin. They've shaped a lot about my spirituality just through light readings and essays, and the general consensus I get from this "school" is that the solution to the problem of evil is confronting fear and cognitive dissonance, and beginning a quest (in the physical or imaginal realm). One poster used Job as an example, which is good, but I prefer Corbin's use of Attar and the grail cycle (which seems much more fitting for a literary board). The birds' quest in Attar's conference of the birds often confronts the problem of evil through the lens of love: the king who must communicate to his subjects through mirrors and (my favorite) the saint whose acolytes left him when he became a Christian, are great examples of romantic theology (which covers gnostic topics). The hoopoe often describes wrongdoing as a person's immediate and misguided understanding of love, helping the birds toward reaching the inaccessible simourgh. In a different but similar way that the many different interpretations of the grail quest allowed medieval authors to pursue spiritual quests that weren't within the normal christian conversation (hence why they aren't canonical texts). The end of the grail quest deals with transfiguration, cosmic revelation through eros, and then ultimately it's return to inaccessibility (the grail always disappears after being found and granting a revelation). Hence why I think these texts are a good gnostic experiment in constantly reevaluating one's relationship with symbols that surround him. The knightly quest is a quest against ignorance, not in pursuit of truth but boldly facing transfiguration/revelation in the face and learning from it.
    Gnosticism doesn't solve the problem of evil, be evil is an obstacle not a force worthy of submission to.
    John Carey's essay on the grail cycle in Corbin's thought and PKD's "how to make a universe that doesn't fall apart two days later" are both great reads if this is up anyone's alley.

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      The only good post in this shit thread. Corbin is immensely based.

  30. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Demonstrably false. I can prove this by tying you to something and putting sharp instruments into your toenails. You'll figure out almost immediately that there is, beyond religion, a perfectly objective definition of an evil action which is anchored to reality and does not consist of speculative theological constructs.

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      >appealing to your individual base desires as the arbiter of good
      Why not just use the word undesirable?

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      Not if I prove to you that I'm right by doing likewise first, you filthy nominalist. You will learn of the superiority of my peaceful ways by force.

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        Looks like we gots ourselves a mexican standoff, anon. Hey, you know if me and you joined forces we could take over the village and make Ma's Whores work for us.

  31. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    The gnostics claim that Good and Evil are separable. What you're describing is just the logic of the mixture. Good rule of thumb: Evil is dyadic, Good is monistic, and this is in fact the highest dualism thinkable.

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      Even your statement is dyadic though

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        >and this is in fact the highest dualism thinkable
        There is a dualism between the DUALITY of Darkness and the MONISM of the Light

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          >the MONISM of the Light
          oh (you) and your endless MOANING

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          Your God needs to be bigger than any duality.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            He doesn't, I'm not a bootlicker, he only needs to be good.

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      That's not true and you're stupid. A universe where good was monadic would be one in which good was all that existed, and only one kind of good.

      Sounds like whatever that universe is it wouldn't have contact with ours in any way.

      >God is the metaphysics of reality
      The logical underlying source of everything.
      >The world is both good and evil simultaneously
      You're defining them as categories relating to human experience. Things within those categories exist in the world but if you apply them to the source of everything it's good, unless your categories are stupid and the creator of a pot is evil because the pot can break, instead of being good for contributing.

      >You're defining them as categories relating to human experience.
      Actually no, that would introduce a triadic logical structure into the architecture of reality. Big and small can still exist without conscious observation; it's size as an abstract concept in relation to that consciousness that ceases to be. Good and evil can exist in potential, just like planets and colors can exist in potential prior to their material instantiation. God is the realm of pure potentia.

      You guys arguing that God is only what is good are just neo-platonists.

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        >Big and small can still exist
        But the idea of good and evil you're presenting rests on a relationship with the observer, it's "good" if it serves him. Being big is good in basketball.
        "Bigness is good in basketball" is true even if basketball isn't played anywhere but the statement is still defined in relation to basketball.

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          Look at you platonic retards, vexed by relative propositions just like he was.

          Pray tell how a universe like ours could exist where big exists but small doesn't? And how size as a concept could exist where big or small don't?

          Good and evil can be metered down unto pleasure and pain. How could pleasure exist without pain and vice versa?

          You're all arguing over a solved problem. A LOGICALLY solved problem at that. You all may as well be arguing about whether or not 1 + 1 really equals 2.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            >Good and evil can be metered down unto pleasure and pain.
            That's your definition that appeals to your base desires as the arbiter of good. It exist in relation to a human or agent that can feel pleasure and pain.
            >Pray tell how a universe like ours could exist where big exists but small doesn't?
            Big and small are defined in relation to space. They aren't fundamental things that were directly revealed to you with no intermediary or logical relationship to anything.
            If you to apply these concepts to the source of everything you would say it's "big" but it would be flawed just like saying the source is good or evil but saying it's good makes more sense than saying it's evil just like calling it small makes less sense than calling it big.
            The idea of benevolent creator is related to human experience, is the gift "benevolent" or not.

            • 7 days ago
              Anonymous

              >That's your definition that appeals to your base desires as the arbiter of good
              Ok then stab yourself in the hand to prove that pain isn't a fundamentally meaningful experience.

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        I said monistic, not monadic. It is one with itself, not all there is.

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          Well things get a little outside of the scope of the conversation when we veer into the metaphysics of extra-dimensional spaces.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            They don't, though, and that's the point: gnostics try to grasp a space where hot doesn't have to equal cold. Where a part precedes the whole.

  32. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    Manichaeism is a a more refined expression of the same principle. God, the force of good, is locked in a struggle with anti-God, the force of evil, and this war is expressed on the mortal plain as the devotion to be good or to surrender to evil in each individual's soul

  33. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    >Wolf bad because look scary. Lamb good because cute.

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      either everything is evil or only humans are

  34. 7 days ago
    Anonymous
    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      another good one is:
      >I created mankind with freewill and the capacity for reasoning but demand they not question anything and blindly trust me on faith.

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        Who are you quoting?

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        >that's considered good on r/atheism
        Are atheists the biggest midwits left on earth?

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          You don't need to be an atheist to think that the creator deity is a contemptible retard

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          i'm not atheist, far from it actually. But not all religions are created equal, and one of the most common responses to "why is there evil" is answered by them claiming that "God doesn't want robots in heaven, but souls with free will that love him", but then at the same time get mad when people with free will ask any questions about this or that, and threaten you with hell for not just accepting everything from the Bible "on faith".

          Who are you quoting?

          >who are you quoting?
          it's just something i see a lot with Christians mainly, but probably not exclusively them. They go on and on about "god gave us free will", but then also get mad if you question God about anything. That "god doesn't want robotic love", but we're supposed to freely choose to robotically love him and not question him (or more importantly, his priests) at all.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            >but then also get mad if you question God about anything
            More likely you don't honestly question just like you present these dishonest memes. Questioning is a fundamental part of these traditions, Israel means wrestling with God, that references exactly that the entire subsequent tradition rests on people struggling with these questions.

            >That's your definition that appeals to your base desires as the arbiter of good
            Ok then stab yourself in the hand to prove that pain isn't a fundamentally meaningful experience.

            >Ok then stab yourself in the hand to prove that pain isn't a fundamentally meaningful experience.
            How did I say pain isn't meaningful? How can you pretend this is honest? What's the logical relationship between these things? What's the thought process? Why don't you have one?

            • 7 days ago
              Anonymous

              >Questioning is a fundamental part of these traditions
              Tell that to Job lol

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Tell that to Job lol
                In the story God explicitly praises Job for the questions. It's one of the rare cases God shows up and explicitly tells us something and it's to tell you specifically that you're a retard.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >what is gaslighting for $500?

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                no, actually God got pissed at Job for daring to question him, the creator of the world.

                have you even read the Bible or are you just automatically arguing with people just to argue?

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >actually God got pissed at Job
                You're probably referencing the part where he argues. "Were you there when I put all this together you presumptuous little shit?".
                Your conditioned dishonesty stops you from reading anything. You're so brainwashed it's made you illiterate.
                In the end God praises Job, says he approached the issue correctly while the others did not.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >in the end...
                so you're saying that God *did* in fact get pissed at Job for daring to question God. Thanks for confirming that 🙂

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                He argued against him and pointed out his lack of knowledge about the things he's trying to nail down.
                The standard interpretation is that God approved of Job questioning. Yet you try to argue based on your own personal, braindead interpretation. To what end even? Weren't you trying to argue Christians don't question things? The same Christians that present you with an interpretation of their holy text that says God says questioning is good. Not just once but over and over all over the text.
                >After the Lord had finished speaking to Job, he said to Eliphaz, “I am angry with you and your two friends, because you did not speak the truth about me, the way my servant Job did.
                Job spoke the truth, despite being wrong about specifics he was approaching the issues correctly and questioning.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >the standard interpretation
                i don't care about "standard interpretations". I'm allowed to think for myself because God gave everyone a brain to reason things out for themselves.
                you keep appealing to authority.
                >the Bible says this and only i'm allowed to interpret the bible.
                >the priests say this and only priests are allowed to have opinions on this.
                >the standard interpretation is this and we have to follow the consensus.
                i disagree with you. Have a nice day, though 😀

            • 7 days ago
              Anonymous

              >more likely you don't honestly question
              >only my questioning is real questioning
              do you even hear yourself? I'm allowed to have different questions than you, that's part of what "free-will" implies, we don't all have to question things in exactly the same way.

              Like the question: "Why does God like the smell of blood?" The israelites "questioned" this and arrived at the conclusion that God is good and that liking the smell of blood makes you good. I question it and arrived at something completely different.
              Because free-will. And israelites don't get to decide who God is or isn't just because they've been lying about God for longer than i've been alive. Nor do you.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm allowed to have different questions than you
                You know what I'm referencing, I've expanded on it plenty in this thread but yet again you pretend you don't.
                Now you're even pretending it's impossible to ask dishonest questions. When did you stop beating your wife?
                >Why does God like the smell of blood?
                Could mean something but you don't mean anything and don't engage with any attempts to point to answers. You're trying to use emotionally charged language to spread your conditioned associations. The funniest part is you like to associate all this negatively with israelites but then you base all your thinking directly on modern israeli PR.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >you know what i'm referencing.
                i do? Do you think i'm psychic, by chance?

                >now you're even pretending it's impossible to ask dishonest questions.
                which means that you could be the one being dishonest.
                >when did you stop beating your wife?
                No one here is talking about wife beating. The question is how can God give us free will so that we're not just "robots who love him" but then demand (or at least, according to the priests) that we accept everything on faith and to stop asking questions of God's behavior, like Job questioned God and then God gets pissed at him.

                You're free to believe whatever you want, and so am i 🙂
                and trust me, i know how much it bothers you that i don't agree with you lol

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >i do?
                Have you never heard of dishonest questions before? Like the example I gave?
                Are you not the same retard I've been explaining this shit to over and over in this thread? Or are you one of his clones?
                >which means that you could be the one being dishonest.
                Not if the subject is my interpretations. You criticize traditions based on your interpretations that don't fit anything those traditions believe. That's incoherent, braindead like every single word you post.
                >The question is how can God give us free will so that we're not just "robots who love him" but then demand (or at least, according to the priests) that we accept everything on faith and to stop asking questions of God's behavior
                And it's exactly like the wifebeater question. I answered the actual question already but you don't care, you still demand I answer with a specific time when I stopped beating my wife.
                >You're free to believe whatever you want, and so am i 🙂
                It's not about what you believe. The entire time I've been arguing against how you think. Your methods not your conclusions. You have no methods at all, just conditioning.
                If you simply disagreed that would be interesting, it might mean I missed something but I know the reason behind the "disagreements" in this case, it's blatantly obvious. You don't care about anything but subverting dialogue to serve your propaganda.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                So what do you believe then? Let's hear it.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                About what you absolutely mindless golem? Not even the simplest post you make has any sort of coherent thought behind it.
                What you actually mean is "what can I associate you with to dismiss you without thinking?".

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                you are a bot, incapable of even stating a single belief of yours 🙂

            • 7 days ago
              Anonymous

              Because all conscious organisms experience some sort of pain, and it is intrinsically meaningful. There is no rational way you can assuage pain. Which means pain is the ultimate meaning. Ergo, by your own retarded logic, pain is God as it is the most fundamentally unquestionable experience.

              Think your way out of that one, Plato.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                Qualia being God is consistent with standard theology. Orthofags are explicit about it.

                >the standard interpretation
                i don't care about "standard interpretations". I'm allowed to think for myself because God gave everyone a brain to reason things out for themselves.
                you keep appealing to authority.
                >the Bible says this and only i'm allowed to interpret the bible.
                >the priests say this and only priests are allowed to have opinions on this.
                >the standard interpretation is this and we have to follow the consensus.
                i disagree with you. Have a nice day, though 😀

                >i don't care about "standard interpretations"
                You do but don't know you do because you don't understand how to string together coherent thought. You do in the cases where you want to relate any of this to any behavior of Christians instead of just the fantasies in your head. You can't conflate everything through these vague associations. You're not thinking or questioning anything.
                Your interpretation makes no sense, that's all we can say about that but you were trying to relate your fantasies to Christian ideas, pretending the Christian scholarly traditions that spread reason and literacy tell you not to question. That's demonstrably false, not a matter of opinion but facts.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                are you a bot or something? You keep stringing together sentences without actually saying anything.

                Prove you're not a bot by saying something you believe in about God or some religion.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                I believe you're cancer. The most important, relevant subject in this thread is how fucked in the head you are, its implications on society and the future of humanity. No sort of dialogue anywhere is safe as long as people like you keep spreading your cancer.
                I believe there has never in history existed anything of more pure malevolence and seething evil than the spirit you and those that infected you embody now.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                i said to state a belief about God or a religion, you're incapable of doing that. You're a bot.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                I believe these words you're demanding I use don't relate any meaning to you.
                God is good.
                This won't mean anything to you and any attempt to elaborate will lead back here since this is where the discussion started.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >God is good.
                amazing, you stated a belief.
                you're wrong of course, but at least you stated a belief, like i asked you to.

                Isaiah 45:7
                >I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                It's not a core belief, you could convince me otherwise. They're also just words, you don't actually understand what I mean by them and don't want to as demonstrated by the Bible quote you posted.
                That everything comes from the source including "evil", however you define it is true by definition. Again you're not really thinking, just trying to promote a conclusion you already decided is true based on revelation and no hint of thought. If there was thought behind any of this you could communicate at least some of it.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >it's not a core belief.
                oh okay, then what's a core belief of yours? 🙂

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                I already told you. Why do I have to repeat the previous post? You forgot what was posted? Or are you inherently dishonest and unable to string together a single coherent, sincere thought?
                I would bet $5k on 50/50 odds you're the same delusional tripfag retard just without the trip.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                nope, you're wrong, i don't namefag or tripfag.
                you can keep your money, you're a bot anyways so it's not like you'd actually be able to pay me anyways

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >nope, you're wrong, i don't namefag or tripfag.
                But you're proven a liar though and so is the tripfag. You also talk exactly like him, use the same kind of associative propaganda horseshit and the same nervous smileys when you start feeling reality creep up on you.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >i was wrong.
                Yep, you're wrong about so many things. 🙂

                btw, i use smiley faces because i'm friendly, not because i'm nervous. If i was trying to convey nervousness i'd probably use a " :S " emote

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >If i was trying to convey nervousness
                I didn't say you were trying to convey nervousness. You deliberately misrepresent everything including this point because you're a liar.
                Being a liar is a defense mechanism to deal with being braindead and illiterate like you demonstrate here again

                >Ideologues have learned in recent decades to never affirm positive beliefs in anything because...
                so you're an ideologue? and that's why you won't state a core belief of yours?
                So you're just arguing with people for the sake of arguing, or because you're a bot that was programmed to seek out gnostic threads and derail them?

                If you just lie to yourself and everyone else you can shut down any thread of thought so you don't have to think about them and can keep feeling safe about your unreasoned divinely revealed worldview. You don't have to consider anything.
                Why not try? Try considering things, just as an excercise.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >i didn't say you were trying to convey nervousness.

                >nope, you're wrong, i don't namefag or tripfag.
                But you're proven a liar though and so is the tripfag. You also talk exactly like him, use the same kind of associative propaganda horseshit and the same nervous smileys when you start feeling reality creep up on you.

                >you use the same nervous smileys
                you're really, really bad at this.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >you're really, really bad at this.
                You're illiterate like I said in the post. It didn't even occur to you to think for two seconds about the distinction between *trying* to convey nervousness and doing it. A nervous smile is not meant to convey nervousness.
                Don't just ignore this. Notice how fucked in the head you are. Completely functionally illiterate.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                Bro you may want to start with something like A History of Western Philosophy by Russel. He can provide a fairly firm foundation for someone who hasn't really encountered any of the problems in philosophy respecting perception and identity propositions.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                If I read that book will I become an illiterate and incoherent liar like you spreading destruction and confusion everywhere I go?
                Does that book relate in any way to the fact demonstrated in that post, that you can't read the simplest statements on a third grade level?

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                My deepest convictions are based on opposing the way you think because you don't think. All my conclusions that are formal enough to be put into words were reached through thinking instead of direct revelation so when it comes to belief the faith in the ability to think comes before belief in any other description of what I believe. You don't have the ability to think so you're deeply offensive to my religion, you're the explicit thing my religion is against. My religion is anti-you.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >My deepest convictions are based on opposing the way you think because you don't think.
                So you oppose nothing?

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >So you oppose nothing?
                I oppose not thinking. Even here you demonstrate that you're a dishonest liar that doesn't care about dialogue, not only do you not care for it you apparently hate it and want to destroy it in all forms.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                Bot

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                Well now you've changed what you've said, which is an admission of poor thought. So, ultimately you must oppose your own position that you oppose all non-thought; meaning you truly oppose all positive thought.

                Which is why you refuse to provide any positive beliefs, because you are fundamentally opposed to them.

                I bet you didn't think you'd be talking to an actual logician today did you, retard?

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                I left you a little escape hatch in my argument, but it will require you admit your thought was bad.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                So you're just a retarded nominalist.

                >I disagree with absolutely everything everyone else says
                >I also don't have any positive beliefs because then you could disagree with me
                I'm sure your opinions will influence many.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >So you're just a retarded nominalist.
                Why would it even be relevant? Do my positions change the contents of the formal logic? It might be if you're not understanding my points and then when it's revealed I'm arguing from a nominalist position that helps you understand but that's not the case at all. I'm not a nominalist and what I believe has no bearing on the utter lack of thinking you display with every post.
                You're trying to think using conditioned associations and I'm not letting you. Engage with the fucking logic you mindless cancer. You pathetic subhuman programmed slave.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                and just look how over the top he is with how "evil" i am.
                >you're cancer
                >never in history has anything as malevolent and seething evil as you existed
                all this over a discussion about gnosticism lol. Waaaay over the top.
                it has the flavor of being a literal bot, because they lack the programming nuance to know when to lay it on thick and when not to.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                Most ideologically possessed people are reminiscent of bots, it's somewhat like you're speaking to a bot until you begin to break apart the fallacious arguments they're making.

                Ideologues have learned in recent decades to never affirm positive beliefs in anything because then their opponent can easily and immediately deconstruct their arguments and reveal them to be fallacious. It's a defense mechanism for arrogant little peasants like him who are Incapable of coherent thought.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Ideologues have learned in recent decades to never affirm positive beliefs in anything because...
                so you're an ideologue? and that's why you won't state a core belief of yours?
                So you're just arguing with people for the sake of arguing, or because you're a bot that was programmed to seek out gnostic threads and derail them?

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                I've made several positive propositions, including that good and evil are dyadic in their logical structure.

                Precisely what is more positive a proposition that an assertion respecting essential logical structure? Oh wait, you don't know because you're 20.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >because you're 20.
                nope, wrong age. Therefore you're a liar.

                >good and evil are dyadic.
                No, evil is dyadic. Evil cannot exist without good to prey upon.
                Good can exist without evil though, good doesn't require evil in order to survive.

                Evil people want others to think evil is somehow "necessary for balance", and that without it things will fall apart, which isn't true.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                What's the opposite of evil, genius? If evil is dyadic then there needs to be something to opposite it. I'm willing to have a dialectical discussion with you on the grounds you don't embarrass yourself.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >what's the opposite of evil. Good. Therefore evil has to exist.
                and yet the whole premise of religion (at least Abrahamic religion) is that evil will one day be completely eradicated, this is the idea of Heaven, where evil won't exist.

                So clearly it's possible for good to exist by itself. Even the opening passage of Bible states that "in the beginning the world was created and it was good." Evil didn't get introduced into the equation until later. Once again proving (per the religious sources) that good can exist without evil.
                Also, as an example, darkness doesn't require light in order to be darkness. Meanwhile, every light has a shadow/darkness, but darkness doesn't have a light.
                So your dyads aren't universal and don't have to apply to good and evil.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                So you're a hylic, gotcha. Been a fun conversation, but I need to get back to my research.

                Best of luck with moving our of your nans spare room.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >so you're a hylic.
                that's a gnostic term, and you claimed gnosticism is bad, so why are you using gnostic terms? Are you now a gnostic? lol

                >been a fun conversation, but i need to leave.
                >RETREAT! RETREAT!

                >best of luck moving out of your nans spare room.
                oh nice, now just flinging insults out as you leave? Don't worry, while i'm not rich, i do have my own home and don't live with any relatives 🙂 Thanks for your concern

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                Bro you're confusing me with other posters. I made this post

                Good and evil are dyadic, just like big and small or fast and slow; morality, size, and speed are all abstract objective conceptions which are comprised by two antonimical subjects that can only exist in relation to one another.

                So, God is the metaphysics of reality. You're all retards, and the gnostics were right.

                The world is both good and evil simultaneously and the one cannot exist without the other.

                >pic related, it's me

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                i responded to

                So you're a hylic, gotcha. Been a fun conversation, but I need to get back to my research.

                Best of luck with moving our of your nans spare room.

                why are you responding to my post if that isn't you?
                >i made this post

                Good and evil are dyadic, just like big and small or fast and slow; morality, size, and speed are all abstract objective conceptions which are comprised by two antonimical subjects that can only exist in relation to one another.

                So, God is the metaphysics of reality. You're all retards, and the gnostics were right.

                The world is both good and evil simultaneously and the one cannot exist without the other.

                >pic related, it's me
                and i wasn't responding to that post. Are you legit retarded or something?

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >i do have my own home and don't live with any relatives
                This is an amazing accomplishment for someone with your disabilities.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >okay so i was wrong about you living with your nan
                thanks for being man enough to admit when you're wrong.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                When I was like 20 I'd come here and argue with people about things I thought I was right about, and be a little shit after I got blown the fuck out.

                Do you think maybe you're doing the same? It looks to me as if you are. I can tell you're gay, for example.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                nah, i never did stuff like that when i was 20.

                I also don't think i've been btfo by anything in here so far. My original question about blood sacrifices and why God likes the smell of blood, etc. still hasn't been answered in any decent manner, though at the very least i'll admit that some(one) has at least made an attempt. Which i suppose is all i can ask for. Though i have read better answers in my own researching, but still nothing that is actually convincing, just seems more like battered wife syndrome apologist explanations. Like people are afraid of going to hell for even questioning the practice of blood ritual sacrifice, and so they try to think up scenarios where such practices could be construed as "good" or at very least "necessary evils".

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                Are you israeli?

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                Yes

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                Then I'll have to cut our discussion off here. I don't like talking with israelites. You guys are all schizo and have massive christ complexes.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                Nope.

                not sure why

                Yes

                is responding to questions not directed at him, but whatever it's LULZ 🙂

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                That wasn't me but I wouldn't have predicted you're independent. I was indeed wrong.
                The compliment is real and so is the qualifier. Imagine what you could accomplish if you could actually think.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                Bro I teach these little homosexuals all the time. They get one whiff of sylogistic logic, think they comprehend it, and then run off into the internet or philosophy clubs to piss everyone off with their ignorance of pragmatacism and phenomenology.

                They're always, without exception, literally homosexual. I have no idea why.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >i was indeed wrong.
                it's a start. Who knows, maybe you're wrong about the rest too 🙂 Maybe you are worshiping a literal demon without even realizing it.

                you sure get mad when people disagree with you. You doing okay? Need a timeout? It's okay that we disagree, you know that right?

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >maybe you're wrong about the rest too
                It's logically impossible. They're different kind of claims that rest within a well defined context. It's like saying maybe I'm wrong about 1+1=2, maybe in some weird alien context but not practically as in I can't predict the number of apples I have in a basket. Like you pointed out as if it was some gotcha I didn't actually rest much of what I said on any claims about God. It's all about the objective, demonstrable fact that you can't think and shouldn't be shitting up any forum, online or otherwise.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                Not him, but are you the poster who claims that God created Earth to “harvests souls” for its company?

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >are you the poster who claims...
                i don't remember saying soul harvest, but i did earlier make a claim that when discussing the problem of evil i tend to see a lot of christians (mainly, but not exclusively) say that evil is necessary since god gave us free will, and that he gave us free will because he doesn't want robotic love, but instead free-willed love, but that this free-willed love has to basically be robotic since we're not allowed to question God as to why created a universe with evil (or where free-will automatically and necessarily means "evil is allowed"). I've been threatened enough times with hellfire for even discussing the gnostic belief that the OT god is actually the Demiurge/Devil, that it's become a sorta meme for me, or at least needs to be made into one with one of those bad artwork memes like in this post's pic related

                So to expand on that idea, since i didn't in my previous post, but i usually mention it when i have this discussion, is that a computer programmer can create a game where you have free-will and yet still cannot do evil things. So you have the free will to move around the game, interact in certain ways, but you're not able to use your character to rob, murder or torture another human being. So if a computer programmer can do it, why can't God? And computer programmers aren't even pure good or omniscient or omnipotent or godlike, the only similarity is their ability to create worlds with certain rules.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                Looks like this one is a repressed or self hating homo.

                Hey, newsflash, kid: go back to school and finish your associates if you want to prove something to someone.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >homo
                the only one bringing homosexuality into this is you. Even though this is a discussion about gnosticism and theodicy.

                Not entirely sure where your obsessive focus on homosexuality is stemming from, though i do have a couple ideas.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >but you're not able to use your character to rob, murder or torture another human being
                All games have adversaries. A creature adapted to life in a lego game about building whatever you want will consider any factor that limits it from building as the greatest evil and a resentful version of that creature would call the programmer evil for not including those things. In effect resenting the whole game because the ideal they've developed around their goals is a game where everything is already built, all the adversaries conquered, it's not a building game anymore.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >All games have adversaries
                that's just not factually true. Some games don't. Solitaire doesn't have an adversary. Duck duck goose doesn't have an adversary. Fez doesn't have an adversary.
                But yes, some games do have adversaries, but it's not necessary, which then begs the question, why did a "good and loving god" create a world with adversaries.

                Reminds me of that scene in Matrix where Smith said they initially created a world that was a paradise (think Golden Age of Saturn) but then switched it to the hell world of Jupiter because too many people caught on to the fact that it was a simulation in the Saturnine paradise.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >that's just not factually true. Some games don't.
                I explained how it's true like in the building game. Again you ignore what I say and just autistically focus on something completely irrelevant and outside the scope.
                This entire post is based on deliberately refusing to read the post it's replying to.
                A goal necessitates adversity.
                >why did a "good and loving god" create a world with adversaries.
                We don't know and it doesn't matter to the question of if God is good either way. According to the myth we were somehow "united" with God, omnipotence and actively decided to know adversity, that is alienation from omnipotence.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >we don't know and it doesn't matter, just COMPLY
                nah, don't think i will. But hey, if being an npc tickles your fancy then HAVE AT IT 🙂

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >we don't know and it doesn't matter, just COMPLY
                More deliberate dishonesty to avoid thinking. What am I telling you to comply with? All I want from you is actually thinking, to be a productive member of any community you're in instead of pure cancer. The fact we don't know doesn't affect any of the traditional ideas about the benevolence of God that you pretend you're criticizing but don't understand.
                It doesn't disprove or even engage with any established ideas about the benevolence of God. A possible answer is that "we" as in the united omnipotence decided to experience adversity for whatever reason but it's us deciding it not something external imposing it. There are indefinite other ways to create an account that doesn't result in needing a malevolent oppressor so the "argument" isn't demonstrating anything for sure like is claimed. It's just a justification for resenting life.
                If some entity created the world out of maliciousness no matter how misguided that was since I enjoy it then it's still possible to call that entity malicious but it's just a word. There's no fundamental "problem", just retards trying to justify basic animal urges as some higher thing.

                >i don't have an issue with different conclusions.
                >retard
                >homo
                >homosexual
                >cancer
                >liar
                >i'm just looking for different perspectives.
                your disingenuousness is off the charts.

                Again the same pattern. You really don't see it? It's every post but maybe clearest with the smiley example. You deliberately try to avoid any meaning I may be pointing at. That's the "strategy". It's not dialogue but strategies for subversives and propagandists.
                You're a retarded homo homosexual cancer liar. These are all demonstrable facts that have nothing to do with questions like if the world is actually some retarded video game made by a retard like you.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                why are you so dishonest? and what's your obsession with gay sex? You really use that word a lot.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >You really use that word a lot.
                Not once until this post. That's the other guy.
                I'm calling you a brainwashed retard that can't think. He's calling you gay. I concur but that's actually an ad hominem unlike when I call you a brainwashed retard and explain in detail the reasons why you're a brainwashed retard.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Reminds me of that scene in Matrix
                I know. Everything reminds you of the Matrix. You talked about it at great lengths on this board before.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >i show up in every gnostic thread even though i'm not a gnostic
                but why? why put yourself through that? i usually avoid threads that don't interest me. Why deliberately go to what you know is going to piss you off?
                Are you 20 years old? or thereabouts? Only young and prideful children have this obsessive urge to go where they're not wanted just to argue.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Why deliberately go to what you know is going to piss you off?
                I told you many times I don't have an issue with the different conclusions, the subject is interesting. I'm looking for different perspectives but all dialogue on any subject is undermined by brainwashed propagandists like you that are unable to argue or consider any perspectives.
                Your attempts to dishonestly conflate ideas, pretend you're retarded, establish emotional associations to serve your preconceptions etc aren't part of any dialogue, it's just cancer.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >i don't have an issue with different conclusions.
                >retard
                >homo
                >homosexual
                >cancer
                >liar
                >i'm just looking for different perspectives.
                your disingenuousness is off the charts.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >we're not allowed to question God as to why created a universe with evil
                People question God all the time in the bible though, and they get answers back. If you don’t like the answers that’s completely arbitrary. It’s only bad if these question are dishonest and don’t serve a higher purpose. What gets people seething is that God created the world not primarily (keyword: primary) to promote human happiness, but to manifest his own glory. God’s purpose in creating the world had to be his own glory, because God is by nature the greatest good and the ultimate end of all things. He is surely concerned about human happiness—it’s not a zero-sum game—but our happiness serves a higher purpose by finding its true fulfilment in God’s supreme goodness and beauty, so Christians build a relationships with God through Christ and the trinity.

                Scripture also gives direct insight into God’s purpose in redemption, most clearly through Paul in Ephesians 1. The apostle uses three purpose clauses to describe the salvific blessings God has lavished “to the praise of his glorious grace” (v. 6) and (twice) “to the praise of his glory” (vv. 12 and 14). As in creation, God’s ultimate purpose in redemption is that his glorious attributes be showcased and celebrated, which is Love.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >it's only bad if these questions are dishonest.
                Don't worry, these aren't dishonest questions, the exact same questions were asked in the Bible. I just happen to agree with the gnostics that the answers are really bad. But the fact that it's the same questions as in the Bible prove that it's not dishonest questions, since why would they include dishonest questions in the Bible, questions that God also responded to in the Bible.

                >God didn't create the world to promote happiness, but to manifest his own glory.
                And that sounds mature and loving to you? Why is it vainglory and narcissistic when humans promote their own glory (which i agree, it is) but not when a god does it?

                The gnostics pray to a different god, a hidden god that stays hidden, and doesn't need to honk its own horn for attention, doesn't need blood sacrifice, doesn't even need to be worshiped or feared.

                I'm totally okay if you want to worship a demon whose motto is "Fear me, that is the beginning of wisdom."

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Why is it vainglory and narcissistic when humans promote their own glory (which i agree, it is) but not when a god does it?

                Because God is good — so worshiping Gods love is the highest good.

                When people try to promote humanism or whatever stretches away from the logos, it’s ends up bad. They tried this already from the beginning, by eating the Apple of knowledge. Adam, in perfect harmony with God in eden, sought to apply his own judgement on Good and Evil in his own accord without holding Gods hand. This came with the consequences and anxiety of such a ruling, that why’s Adam says he feels “anxiety” in Genesis. This what we call Human Nature.

                Thus it’s reasonable to infer that God’s primary purpose in allowing the fall was to showcase his glory both in the original creation and also in his powerful and merciful restoration of that creation from its rebellion and corruption. If you think its Evil of God to let Adam do such a thing; since he foresaw it and all, and one might think an unfallen creation would be preferable to a fallen creation—and all else being equal. But all else is not equal, for our world is not merely a fallen creation. It’s a fallen creation into which the eternal Son of God has entered, taking on human nature, perfectly expressing God’s likeness in our midst, living a morally flawless life, making atonement for our sins through his sacrificial death, rising in triumph from the grave, and ascending into heaven, where he continually intercedes and secures for us an eternal joyful dwelling-place in God’s presence. fall comes between creation and redemption. Without a creation there could be no fallen creation; without a fallen creation there could be no redeemed creation. Salvation presupposes sin; restoration presupposes a fall. Its reasonable to infer that God’s primary purpose in allowing the fall was to showcase his glory both in the original creation and also in his powerful and merciful restoration of that creation from its rebellion and corruption.

                > "Fear me, that is the beginning of wisdom."

                God has ordained a world in which we can know and intimately live with him—not only as a tyrant. but as a Creator, but also as Redeemer.

                Psalm 30:5

                “For his anger lasts only a moment, but his favor lasts a lifetime; weeping may stay for the night, but rejoicing comes in the morning”

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >What gets people seething is that God created the world not primarily (keyword: primary) to promote human happiness, but to manifest his own glory.
                That's hilariously wicked and doesn't even make any fucking sense if God is already infinitely perfect

                "Your kid was raped and tortured for weeks on end before finally dying of malnutrition and infection because God needed to jerk himself off" is probably the worst argument in favor of the creator deity imaginable; God is literally Lord Farquaad going "Some of you may die, but that is a sacrifice I am willing to make"

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                The Bible’s teaching of sin starts in the garden, where Adam violated God’s prohibition from eating from the forbidden tree. There, we discover that prior to man’s fall, sin existed in the form of the tempting serpent. The Bible shows that God is not the author of sin, since in his holiness God is without any sin or evil of his own. Careful biblical reflection teaches that God willed sin in such a way that he remains morally perfect: God is never the primary but only the secondary cause of human sin. The attempt to make rational sense of sin will always run aground on the inherent irrationality of sin. Yet, at the cross of Jesus Christ, where God willed that his Son would be handed over to death by the hands of guilty sinners, we discover the best answer to questions about the origin of sin in the sovereign grace of God that glorifies him in the redemption of sinners.

                Genesis 1:27 states that “God created man in his own image,” and this image implies personal holiness, righteousness, and thus freedom from the necessity of sin. Donald Macleod writes: “According to the Bible, man, as made by God, was upright. He was made in God’s image. He was absolutely sinless.”1 Man became a sinner, however, when Adam succumbed to temptation in the garden. In this important sense, man sinned when Adam willed to sin in his heart. Having been forbidden by God to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:17–18), Adam ate the fruit and fell into sin (Gen 3:6). Sin therefore did not originate in the human nature as God made it but resulted when Adam was tempted by the evil serpent through his wife.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                Oh, alright, you're a Calvinist, my bad

                You should've clarified that before I wasted my time responding to your drivel

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Best of luck with moving our of your nans spare room
                Nasty projection

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >all this over a discussion about gnosticism
                I don't care about the conclusions. I told you so many times and haven't been arguing about gnosticism but you ignore it and just pretend your delusions are valid. I've been arguing about you. What's wrong with your brain? What's important here, the reason you're cancer is you don't have methods. You have ideologically motivated propaganda that you present as such. You haven't tried to put together thoughts.
                >Well now you've changed what you've said
                No, you've perhaps grown closer to the meaning I was attempting to convey and you deliberately avoid understanding. Deliberately staring at my finger instead of what it's pointing at because you don't have an honest bone in your body.
                >Which is why you refuse to provide any positive beliefs, because you are fundamentally opposed to them.
                They're not relevant to anything we're talking about. My personal beliefs don't change how dishonest you are. The logic behind my posts don't change. I maintain many different models of anything I'm interested in understanding. You know, I actually think about them instead of pretending I have access to direct divine revelation about them.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >i haven't been arguing about gnosticism, even though this is a gnostic thread.
                >i came to this thread specifically to argue about you.
                lol, what a horribly programmed bot you are

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                We started talking about the problem of evil. You immediately started undermining all hope of any dialogue through associative conditioning and lies.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >you immediately started undermining
                really? link to the exact post where i did that.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >heed my autistic dishonest demands
                Every post you make is undermining dialogue including this one.
                You're now resorting to pretending the entire thread didn't happen to make any sort of point. Your dishonest wifebeating questions undermine dialogue. The dishonest "I don't know anything, you have to spoonfeed me again what was already said in the previous post" is dishonest. These aren't rhetorical devices to approach truth, you're not asking questions that have the possibility of leading somewhere. You're not considering any different perspective or models and trying to evaluate them.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                He's probably just a LGBT regular. They're the last bastion of triphomosexualry in LULZ

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                so in other words you can't prove the claims you're making against me.
                >scrolling up and copy-pasting and linking to the post is too hard. Just admit you're a psychic and that you know exactly what i'm talking about, even though we're all anonymous here and that you couldn't possibly keep track of who is who.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >so in other words you can't prove the claims you're making against me.
                I gave you and continue to give you way more than you deserve and try to communicate my thoughts way more than you. The post itself is an example of you undermining the discussion. Basically blaming me that you haven't been following it and don't understand anything.
                All you can do is demand more from me which demonstrates the underlying spoiled, resentful attitudes that lead to your rejection of reason and thinking.
                >I demand you explain this braindead presumption based on a long list of assumptions I will never question or I will continue to spam it as propaganda
                No. Nothing can be explained to you. You don't have the capability to understand anything. When I point at the moon you say "where is this fucking moon?" without even taking two seconds to tilt your head up in the direction I'm pointing.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                .

  35. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    Based dualist chads win again. See you next time suckers

  36. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    Refutations of refutations don't equal a definitive proof, you gay retard.

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      my god, are you still here!!
      >refuting what i say isn't legitimate
      >using the bible to disprove the bible is a fallacy
      god damn son

      your errors are remedial kindergarten age errors.

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        Bro, once again, I haven't argued against anything you've said in this thread thus far. I've only made fun of you for being unable to formulate positive propositions.

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          sure i get that you think that, but you're just factually in error everytime you say this sort of thing, if it's what you actually think and you're not lying then you have no idea how stupid you sound.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            I think I'm happily married and have a career in philosophy whereas you're probably psychotic.

            What are your thoughts in Carl Jung?

            • 7 days ago
              Anonymous

              >I think I'm happily married and have a career in philosophy whereas you're probably psychotic.
              I work in healthcare with psychiatric and neurology patients and I find the middle and latter part of your supposition to be hysterical in a dark and surrealist sort of a way.

              >What are your thoughts in Carl Jung?
              I eat at Carls Juniors once in a while, the fries are pretty good, what's your point, stupid?

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Works in psychiatry
                >Doesn't know Jung
                Well no wonder you're insane. Your name isn't Ignatius, is it?

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >Jung
                I know Cole Juggs, I was making an Idiocracy joke, stupid, because that' the cultural backdrop we're in right now, w/re: your cracked out theory of how any refutation made of your claims are invalid.

                brought to you by Carls Jnr.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                I don't really watch shows for man babies. I like bobs burgers because my wife enjoys it? I guess that's as manbabyish as I can get for you.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                Huh well I'd advise you to make a doctors appointment, anon, you're displaying a kind of trainwreck dissonant compartmentalization in your thought processes; a psychotic solipsistic or mild psychotic schizophrenic episode where you've rationalized for yourself how to disconnect from any and all feedback (among other things I noticed) - sluggish schizophrenia under the old DSM.

                Or you might be on pain pills or 90mg of prozac a day.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                this guy has to be a bot whose sole function is to derail and insult. You haven't made any positive propositions this entire thread, all you're doing is endlessly insulting, often times with complete non sequiturs.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >You haven't made any positive propositions this entire thread, all you're doing is endlessly insulting, often times with complete non sequiturs.
                as I said,
                I'd advise you to make a doctors appointment, anon, you're displaying a kind of trainwreck dissonant compartmentalization in your thought processes; a psychotic solipsistic or mild psychotic schizophrenic episode where you've rationalized for yourself how to disconnect from any and all feedback (among other things I noticed) - sluggish schizophrenia under the old DSM.

                Or you might be on pain pills or 90mg of prozac a day.

                I'm 'positive' (no pun intended) you're on one of those two drug regimes. Nobody sober without narcotics or serotonin flooded into their brain would make these kind of mistakes on purpose.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >blah blah blah blah blah
                1/10 insult range.
                Bot tier.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                But you do understand what that analogy was conveying, right?

                If a guy tells you he is married and he points your attention to a fallen mop and bucket ont he floor, saying "this is my wife, she's a little tired though, in't her hair pretty," and you say "dude that's a mop and bucket" and (after some arguement) he says "well you pointed at my wife before you said she was a mop and bucket, so you can see my wife and you KNOW she exists (and that she's not a mop and bucket)!"

                You understand that that was how you were refuting peoples points,
                e.g.
                >using the bible to disprove the bible is a fallacy
                brought to you by Carls Jnr.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                fucking bots.
                Internet forums have become such garbage.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                are you saying I'm a chatbot now? Dude, you're ticking so many boxes for dissociative psychosis you don't even realize.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                i'm saying your repetitive insults that are barely insults, just randomly flung with no intent to actually sting or hurt... yea it definitely gives off a chatbot vibe.
                real people can actually hurt someone else's feelings, but all you're doing is just low grade 1/10 tier insults that don't even apply at all.

                And yes, yes i know, you're going to respond with a new barrage of insults. A torrent of them. Maybe even two or three posts worth of insults. Every insult in your toolkit. You really don't have to, but if you're programmed to then i guess you must. But really it's not necessary, you're just wasting your time.

                But you do what you gotta do.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >real people can actually hurt someone else's feelings,
                That's because I'm not trying to hurt your feelings at all anon.

                I've noticed you constantly brushing away refutations against your arguments by saying that,
                again e.g.
                >using the bible to disprove the bible is a fallacy
                and I'm telling you that this is not legitimate. What you call 'insults' are my attempt to diagnose your exact error or cognitive disorder based on these observations over a messaging window. Purely because this is interesting to me.

                >And yes, yes i know, you're going to respond with a new barrage of insults. A torrent of them.
                I'm won't. I'm concerned and intrigued how a brain can operate with this extreme level of dissonance.

                Please read this again, and respond to it:

                But you do understand what that analogy was conveying, right?

                If a guy tells you he is married and he points your attention to a fallen mop and bucket ont he floor, saying "this is my wife, she's a little tired though, in't her hair pretty," and you say "dude that's a mop and bucket" and (after some arguement) he says "well you pointed at my wife before you said she was a mop and bucket, so you can see my wife and you KNOW she exists (and that she's not a mop and bucket)!"

                You understand that that was how you were refuting peoples points,
                e.g.
                >using the bible to disprove the bible is a fallacy
                brought to you by Carls Jnr.

                explaining why you don't think this is what you were doing.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >homosexual
                >retard
                >cancer
                >meds, now
                >Teehee, i'm not trying to hurt your feelings at all anon, why would you think that?
                You're not fooling anyone, you *have* been trying, you're just not good at it. There's a difference.

                >i won't respond with insults anymore.
                >i'm concerned.
                >btw you have extreme level of dissonance.
                >okay i know i said i wouldn't insult, but i just had to slip one in. Programmed to, and all.
                lol, you're a hoot

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                I didn't curse at you once, anon. I never told you those things.

                I mean they seem like reasonable feedback you would get from anyone for doing what you were doing, but..

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >cognitive dissonance isn't an insult.
                >i didn't curse at you once.
                the word was "insult", not curse. You did insult me, even though "cognitive dissonance" isn't a curse, it's still an insult. Which you said you wouldn't do 🙂

                Brought to you by "Gnostics were right"

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                >>btw you have extreme level of dissonance.
                >>okay i know i said i wouldn't insult, but i just had to slip one in.
                Actually, anon, that gives it away: you're told you're not well and you interpret it as some kind of targeted malicious abuse.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                you actually think you're qualified to make such an opinion as that, over the internet, from one conversation? That's pretty bold of you 🙂
                How you doing, you feeling okay? Any thing new going on in your life? Let's talk.

            • 7 days ago
              Anonymous

              >I think I'm happily married and have a career in philosophy whereas you're probably psychotic.
              also the initial opening was also hysterical,

              >'i think' I think I'm happily married and have a career in philosophy whereas you're probably psychotic.

              BUT AGAIN, how cn you prove it if you think being shown proofs of a thing against a thing is a fallacy? e.g. pointing out that"your wife" for example is a fall mop and bucket would be a fallacy in your eyes, because i'm pointing TO 'your wife' to make my claim.

              Right?

              (thats a fucking ace analogy i did just there, i hope you get it)

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          2/2
          i listened to a few old atheist experience shows and a couple of really eager-sounding callers did this exact same thing. i'd forgotten people actually operate this way.

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          you haven't formulated any positive propositions either. By you're own logic you're a gay retard too.

  37. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    "Uuuuh everythings evil and we have secret knowledge and our priests are perfect people so we'll call them perfects also we're vegetarians and suicide is badass and a way to escape this matrix we live in". Retarded theology for retarded men. I shit in their shoes. If you're going to choose to be a Non Catholic atleast choose a neat heresy like Jansenism or Mormonism.

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      isn't Catholicism heresy from Judaism? And also heretical from Orthodox?
      and where does it say in the bible to molest the choir boys?

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, yes and Yes.

  38. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    >go to bed
    >wake up
    >they're still fighting
    Are ya winning, son?

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      I walked away hours ago, I'm trying to help this guy out. We need to get him to commit to making an appointment with his doctor or we need to convince him to agree with my mop and bucket analogy.

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        >i walked away hours ago.
        >i've been arguing for hours.
        Pick one and only one. 🙂

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          oh i did, I got bored ages and ages ago, I only checked back in a little while back.

          This was my last post:

          >You just state these associations you have as factual
          I base it on prediction from experience, I suppose, e.g. I have observed (this thing) so I know exactly what will happen if (I do that). Are you sure you want to test me on this? I may have replied to you earlier with this point-to-prove in mind, praising you for this purpose, and you may have replied back, praising me for my great intellect.

          I'm just saying.

          >bias
          yep still bias.

          Also, again, you didn't respond to any of the other points made so I'm done with this, it's gotten boring and repetitive, despite warning you about it. See ya.

          [...]
          >it was extremely populist, meaning it wasn't "elitist" at all,
          ah good point, I may have misphrased what I meant; I mean to differentiate the 'pseudo-populism' of fat people standing up in gold and white clothing and making pleasant noises to an audience, from actually popular and liked personages who were without the bling and were absent of the hypocrisy:

          the first benedictine working-monks vs. the lazy greedy papal extortionists, for example.

          >since the catholics had brainwashed the peasants into following along with their version.
          since the consequences of an unworkable ideology causes terrible social problems which cannot be admitted to by that elite which then necessitates their invention of scapegoat to blame for their own criminality or ineptitude.

          > (even to the point of allowing themselves to be genocided for their beliefs, just like Jesus allowed himself to be killed).
          Maybe. I get the impression they were not unlike the St. Basils and St. Benedicts; they had good ideas and wanted to help people,but they had to put it in a religious framework to avoid being burned or punished for doing something good.

          It's a pretty jaded view I hold, admittedly, but it does offer a rationale for the notion of demos ourgos (e.g. demagogues leading the public to harm) as a pernicious thing quite outside of later theology.

          oh sorry, anon, forgot to add:

          my god, are you still here!!
          >refuting what i say isn't legitimate
          >using the bible to disprove the bible is a fallacy
          god damn son

          your errors are remedial kindergarten age errors.

          "not the guy you were speaking to but"

  39. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    bought to you by Carls Jnr.

Your email address will not be published.