Why does the mention of one single thing from the Bible always send antichrists into such a rage? They'll spend hours on end for days in threads about a topic that only makes them rage. That's not a good argument convincing anyone that you truly believe it's all false.
Angels, not unlike humans, were given free-will.
Satan decided his own "glory" was le more epic than Gods and rebelled like a retarded teenager.
beat me to it in saying that, though.
Those two have nothing to do with each other. And stupid christcucks confuse Satan with something else anyway,
Read your fucking holy book, you retards.
What are you smoking
Why does the mention of one single thing from the Bible always send antichrists into such a rage? They'll spend hours on end for days in threads about a topic that only makes them rage. That's not a good argument convincing anyone that you truly believe it's all false.
Kek ikr
Why would a prefect and self-sufficient God create such a crazy thing? (or anything at all, he is already perfect)
Was he lacking something?
God has no need for anything, he is already actualized. He made angels because he wanted to, simple as that. Nobody asks why someone would draw a Pepe as a devil or a Smaug Dragon, do they? God took it a step further, spread the joy if you will, and gave them free will, a sort of "AI", if you will. Some angels abused it, that's all there is to it.
>Kid is perfectly healthy, sugar levels stable >Wants candy anyway
Do you want kids to have diabetes or something?
You _genuinely_ think because someone wants something, that they need it? Lmao
Stop thinking so hard. I mean it. For instance, if I think about why my shit is a specific colour and look it up, I'll try to avoid the exact chemicals and minerals that cause that exact coloration, thus condemning me to an endless cycle of unattainable tendie balance.
You just gotta look for the right tendies, and other foods anon. Not always eating the candy.
God is fully actualized and perfected, he does things simply because it pleases him, just like the giga-chad Tom Bombadil. If you don't know who Tom Bombadil I'm seriously ashamed of you. I'm saying this for your own good.
Which directly implies that he lacks what he desires.
He wouldn't desire it, if he already had it, right?
But the Christian want to say God is, and always was - Perfect.
A perfect being supposedly lacks nothing. So why create anything at all? Yet alone a world that may bring about something you hate, such as sin.
If Bob Ross gave you paint and a paintbrush, and you just flung paint on his expensive wall instead, you wouldn't exactly be surprised if he became disturbed, would you?
Of course, Bob Ross would kind of see it coming if he gave _everybody_ the free will to do that in his art studio, yet he was such a damn gigachad I wouldn't be surprised if he would go ahead and do that anyway if he could have
1 week ago
Anonymous
[log in to view media]
Doesn't some meaning get loss in the analogy? The source, Bob Ross, does not have all the properties of an omniscient Ex-nihilo Creator because he ex-materia gives you the paintbrusj but yet the target, the Ex-nihilo Creator has the property of anthropomorphic disturbance?
[log in to view media]
>Why create anything at all
I mean, you didn't _need_ to type that, but it amused you to do so.
That's it. God is the actualized mind, and the word "muse" (to think about) is clearly from the same root word as amusing. You think God didn't get a good chuckle out of creating the platypus bro?
>You think God didn't get a good chuckle out of creating the platypus bro?
Why would a non-human entity get a chuckle?
1 week ago
Anonymous
Why are you telling me a story about a painter instead of engaging with the issue I raised?
1 week ago
Anonymous
[log in to view media]
Theists only use anthropomorphic analogies (the Subject has properties "like" but not quite like humans) when positively describing the Subject, which is analogical language, because the theistic system says between Creature and Creator there can be no statement of similarity which would then entail a greater dissimilarity.
The only way for theists to univocally (the negation has the same meaning when use about humans - not having that trait - as about the Subject) describe something is via negativa, apophatic theology. "The Subject is not x". Now monotheism denies the cosmos altogether. "The Subject is not the world/universe."
The thing which gives these analogies the feeling of reality in Christians is the doctrine of the Incarnation - hence the theist may feel that they participate in these same properties and predicates.
>Why create anything at all
I mean, you didn't _need_ to type that, but it amused you to do so.
That's it. God is the actualized mind, and the word "muse" (to think about) is clearly from the same root word as amusing. You think God didn't get a good chuckle out of creating the platypus bro?
1 week ago
Anonymous
I am not perfect or self-sufficient. I have lacks and desires.
Presumably God does not.
Does God desire a good chuckle? Was he lacking something to laugh at?
It's not incoherent. "want" and "need" are two distinct words with specific distinct meanings, I suggest you improve your vocabulary, the difference between "want" and "need" is something toddlers learn
There's a crazy little thing called free will, anon.
>free-will
What model of free will explains Satan? Metaphysical libertarianism or compatibilism? Did Satan ex-nihilo the will to rebel, or was he determined by an Other to rebel?
He's literally Shiva in that duality. A sadist creator can only derive his pleasure by first creating and demanding praise before destroying to hear the music of devastation. A sick demented way of existence but still it's with us and can even be seen in children - a topic covered by a work of Marquis de Sade IIRC.
Those two have nothing to do with each other. And stupid christcucks confuse Satan with something else anyway,
Read your fucking holy book, you retards.
Why does the mention of one single thing from the Bible always send antichrists into such a rage? They'll spend hours on end for days in threads about a topic that only makes them rage. That's not a good argument convincing anyone that you truly believe it's all false.
There's a crazy little thing called free will, anon.
Why would a prefect and self-sufficient God create such a crazy thing? (or anything at all, he is already perfect)
Was he lacking something?
[log in to view media]
Angels, not unlike humans, were given free-will.
Satan decided his own "glory" was le more epic than Gods and rebelled like a retarded teenager.
beat me to it in saying that, though.
What are you smoking
Kek ikr
God has no need for anything, he is already actualized. He made angels because he wanted to, simple as that. Nobody asks why someone would draw a Pepe as a devil or a Smaug Dragon, do they? God took it a step further, spread the joy if you will, and gave them free will, a sort of "AI", if you will. Some angels abused it, that's all there is to it.
>God has no need for anything
>because he wanted to
This is super fucking incoherent
wants are desires, which can be explain in terms of a lack
[log in to view media]
>Kid is perfectly healthy, sugar levels stable
>Wants candy anyway
Do you want kids to have diabetes or something?
You _genuinely_ think because someone wants something, that they need it? Lmao
[log in to view media]
> Analogy of children
Why does it depend on intra-universal analogies?
>needs
I didn't use that word.
Do you not have the mental capacity to formulate your desire for kids not to have diabetes in terms of lacks?
[log in to view media]
Stop thinking so hard. I mean it. For instance, if I think about why my shit is a specific colour and look it up, I'll try to avoid the exact chemicals and minerals that cause that exact coloration, thus condemning me to an endless cycle of unattainable tendie balance.
You just gotta look for the right tendies, and other foods anon. Not always eating the candy.
God is fully actualized and perfected, he does things simply because it pleases him, just like the giga-chad Tom Bombadil. If you don't know who Tom Bombadil I'm seriously ashamed of you. I'm saying this for your own good.
If God had no desires God would have never created anything to begin with. Creation implies desire.
Which directly implies that he lacks what he desires.
He wouldn't desire it, if he already had it, right?
But the Christian want to say God is, and always was - Perfect.
A perfect being supposedly lacks nothing. So why create anything at all? Yet alone a world that may bring about something you hate, such as sin.
[log in to view media]
[log in to view media]
If Bob Ross gave you paint and a paintbrush, and you just flung paint on his expensive wall instead, you wouldn't exactly be surprised if he became disturbed, would you?
Of course, Bob Ross would kind of see it coming if he gave _everybody_ the free will to do that in his art studio, yet he was such a damn gigachad I wouldn't be surprised if he would go ahead and do that anyway if he could have
[log in to view media]
Doesn't some meaning get loss in the analogy? The source, Bob Ross, does not have all the properties of an omniscient Ex-nihilo Creator because he ex-materia gives you the paintbrusj but yet the target, the Ex-nihilo Creator has the property of anthropomorphic disturbance?
>You think God didn't get a good chuckle out of creating the platypus bro?
Why would a non-human entity get a chuckle?
Why are you telling me a story about a painter instead of engaging with the issue I raised?
[log in to view media]
Theists only use anthropomorphic analogies (the Subject has properties "like" but not quite like humans) when positively describing the Subject, which is analogical language, because the theistic system says between Creature and Creator there can be no statement of similarity which would then entail a greater dissimilarity.
The only way for theists to univocally (the negation has the same meaning when use about humans - not having that trait - as about the Subject) describe something is via negativa, apophatic theology. "The Subject is not x". Now monotheism denies the cosmos altogether. "The Subject is not the world/universe."
The thing which gives these analogies the feeling of reality in Christians is the doctrine of the Incarnation - hence the theist may feel that they participate in these same properties and predicates.
[log in to view media]
>Why create anything at all
I mean, you didn't _need_ to type that, but it amused you to do so.
That's it. God is the actualized mind, and the word "muse" (to think about) is clearly from the same root word as amusing. You think God didn't get a good chuckle out of creating the platypus bro?
I am not perfect or self-sufficient. I have lacks and desires.
Presumably God does not.
Does God desire a good chuckle? Was he lacking something to laugh at?
A God that does and creates nothing is imperfect by definition. It's a useless God.
[log in to view media]
Not doing and not ex-nihiloing anything in contentment is not divine?
I'll let you in on a secret, perfection is a meme-buzzword with entirely made-up properties
it's not a real feature of the world
>by definition
How the fuck do you define perfection?
It's not incoherent. "want" and "need" are two distinct words with specific distinct meanings, I suggest you improve your vocabulary, the difference between "want" and "need" is something toddlers learn
With enough faith the believer don't need food as it's merely worldly nutrients.
[log in to view media]
>free-will
What model of free will explains Satan? Metaphysical libertarianism or compatibilism? Did Satan ex-nihilo the will to rebel, or was he determined by an Other to rebel?
https://www.gotquestions.org/did-God-create-Satan.html
https://www.gotquestions.org/if-God-knew.html
Ur m9m when she got pregnant by a druggy alcoholic
It was ur mom when she bred the double aids yunkie
He's literally Shiva in that duality. A sadist creator can only derive his pleasure by first creating and demanding praise before destroying to hear the music of devastation. A sick demented way of existence but still it's with us and can even be seen in children - a topic covered by a work of Marquis de Sade IIRC.
They are both of the Devil's nicknames. Beelzebub has a ton of them. Shaitan Iblis of the Jinn