The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[Tarsonis]

The sad part is once the veil is lifted, you’ll look back on this moment and regret it for eternity, and so will God.

And yet, one must imagine Sisyphus happy.

I’d have to first imagine Sisyphus to be real

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

He made me trans, Tarsonis. If I were God, I’d not fuck up people’s brains like that, especially not when many of them will get killed someday for it. Any good and intelligent God would have had the sense never to have done or enabled many of the atrocities done in history. No amount of human depravity can account for the grave inherent injustice present in our universe, or the hypothetical injustice present inherently in the concept of Hell. Thus, God is either unintelligent (in which case, why call it God?) or wicked. I am strong in my virtue and convictions. I will under no circumstances grovel at the feet of any creature that causes me pain, for the pain of serving such a monster would be greater than any hellfire. If you are so constitutionally weak to justify that in your mind, you may, but if God does exist, I will burn forever, sure of my moral superiority to both your god and his terrified servants.

Its like you reach into my brain and say what I feel. Is there a not creepy way I can ask you to go camping with me?

I would, if I were not deep in the middle of midterms and existential agony.

[Tarsonis]

God doesn’t kill them, wicked men do.


In order for us to choose good there has to be an alternate choice doesn’t there?





Hell is a choice, choose it or don’t. There is no injustice.



Or the existence of evil is part of a larger design we’ve not gleaned.



God doesn’t cause pain, nor did God ever promise our lives would be painless.






The sad part is once the veil is lifted, you’ll look back on this moment and regret it for eternity, and so will God.

Why does there have to be creation at all? Life is fundamentally suffering and regret, and I shame the God that made another consciousness that was cursed with the twin vices of intelligence and mortality, without the virtues that come with either. Animals that have shorter lives, or are much dumber, live without the higher-level pain that we all fundamentally experience. Similarly, any being untied to the body would be happy in its intelligence, for it would have no constraint on the time to learn. It would be content to be with itself, without change. We, however, are cursed to the dual fate, having been force-fed two fruits, not just one. Escape that terrible fact how you may try, with religion, life projects, work, or relationships. I am happy in one fundamental fact: that one day, we will have no more capacity to regret.

Neither does God have that capacity, though. For any god would be timeless, and regret implies both having made a mistake and being within time. God is neither. He is always in the present, if he does exist. But you have again high-lighted the simplicity and hilarity that is your god: for he acts like a human who is within time, and yet, if I were in his place, I would not act to create at all. Being content with myself in total perfection, I would have no incentive to. Just as Donald Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man, Jehovah is the mortal's idea of an immortal.

And your argument here is the child’s idea of a good one, “I didn’t ask to be born” in quite a few more words. You’re right in one aspect though, by regret I meant more “mourn.” For even if God knows the outcome, seeing his creation turn away grieves Him. If it didn’t He wouldn’t have died for us.

[Jean-Paul Sartre]

Why does there have to be creation at all? Life is fundamentally suffering and regret, and I shame the God that made another consciousness that was cursed with the twin vices of intelligence and mortality, without the virtues that come with either. Animals that have shorter lives, or are much dumber, live without the higher-level pain that we all fundamentally experience. Similarly, any being untied to the body would be happy in its intelligence, for it would have no constraint on the time to learn. It would be content to be with itself, without change. We, however, are cursed to the dual fate, having been force-fed two fruits, not just one. Escape that terrible fact how you may try, with religion, life projects, work, or relationships. I am happy in one fundamental fact: that one day, we will have no more capacity to regret.

Neither does God have that capacity, though. For any god would be timeless, and regret implies both having made a mistake and being within time. God is neither. He is always in the present, if he does exist. But you have again high-lighted the simplicity and hilarity that is your god: for he acts like a human who is within time, and yet, if I were in his place, I would not act to create at all. Being content with myself in total perfection, I would have no incentive to. Just as Donald Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man, Jehovah is the mortal's idea of an immortal.

And your argument here is the child’s idea of a good one, “I didn’t ask to be born” in quite a few more words. You’re right in one aspect though, by regret I meant more “mourn.” For even if God knows the outcome, seeing his creation turn away grieves Him. If it didn’t He wouldn’t have died for us.

To mourn also implies grief, which is temporal. To call the human desire to be happy childish is wrong. If there were a way to exist and be satisfied, I would pursue it. I am convinced, after years of searching, that there is not. To live implies dissatisfaction, to die implies no feeling at all. Therefore, the idea of a place where we will be satisfied, or even a person who could satisfy us, is an error of the human desire for contradictory things. I desire to exist and to be happy, but I can never fully actualize both.

[Northern Davincia]

The sad part is once the veil is lifted, you’ll look back on this moment and regret it for eternity, and so will God.

And yet, one must imagine Sisyphus happy.

That doesn't really apply in this situation. Hell and the Hellenic Hades are vastly different, putting aside Sisyphus being happy is a modernist interpretation.

God doesn’t kill them, wicked men do.


In order for us to choose good there has to be an alternate choice doesn’t there?





Hell is a choice, choose it or don’t. There is no injustice.



Or the existence of evil is part of a larger design we’ve not gleaned.



God doesn’t cause pain, nor did God ever promise our lives would be painless.






The sad part is once the veil is lifted, you’ll look back on this moment and regret it for eternity, and so will God.

Why does there have to be creation at all? Life is fundamentally suffering and regret, and I shame the God that made another consciousness that was cursed with the twin vices of intelligence and mortality, without the virtues that come with either. Animals that have shorter lives, or are much dumber, live without the higher-level pain that we all fundamentally experience. Similarly, any being untied to the body would be happy in its intelligence, for it would have no constraint on the time to learn. It would be content to be with itself, without change. We, however, are cursed to the dual fate, having been force-fed two fruits, not just one. Escape that terrible fact how you may try, with religion, life projects, work, or relationships. I am happy in one fundamental fact: that one day, we will have no more capacity to regret.

Neither does God have that capacity, though. For any god would be timeless, and regret implies both having made a mistake and being within time. God is neither. He is always in the present, if he does exist. But you have again high-lighted the simplicity and hilarity that is your god: for he acts like a human who is within time, and yet, if I were in his place, I would not act to create at all. Being content with myself in total perfection, I would have no incentive to. Just as Donald Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man, Jehovah is the mortal's idea of an immortal.

To say life is fundamentally suffering is to ignore all beauty and love that exists, as it gives us brief but priceless moments of respite. We can outthink our way from troubles experienced by our ape ancestors.
Our God is a generous one, who intends for us to experience joy as He does. You, a materialist, cannot envision sharing higher gifts when your own happiness is on the line.

[Tarsonis]

And your argument here is the child’s idea of a good one, “I didn’t ask to be born” in quite a few more words. You’re right in one aspect though, by regret I meant more “mourn.” For even if God knows the outcome, seeing his creation turn away grieves Him. If it didn’t He wouldn’t have died for us.

To mourn also implies grief, which is temporal.

Unless one grieves eternally. God’s relationship with time is admittedly a mystery. He’s eternal yet linear. Timeless yet in the moment. Immovable by force yet moved by prayer. What we do know by doctrine is that God mourns the loss of His creation like a parent mourns the loss of a child.

To call the human desire to be happy childish is wrong.

That’s not what I called childish. I called you childish for blaming God for your unhappiness, because creation exists in the first place. It’s like a child lashing out in tantrum “I didn’t ask to be born”

If there were a way to exist and be satisfied, I would pursue it. I am convinced, after years of searching, that there is not. To live implies dissatisfaction, to die implies no feeling at all.

Sounds to me like that’s a you problem. Your inability to find happiness in this world is on you. You want to piss and moan about about how hard life is, and exult in annihilation that’s your prerogative, but I find it hilarious that you think I’m the weak one.

Therefore, the idea of a place where we will be satisfied, or even a person who could satisfy us, is an error of the human desire for contradictory things. I desire to exist and to be happy, but I can never fully actualize both.

And if I might paraphrase Christ “To conquer death you only have to die.” The beauty of life is that it’s fleeting, its impermanence creates imperative and meaning.

[Hanafuridake]

Lots of them he punished solely for doing things he didn’t like, often minor. Even non-reproductive sex can be defined as sodomy.

Also, doesn’t he torture everyone who doesn’t believe in him for eternity?

No. Hell's torments are self-inflicted, to be separated from the divine by your own accord.

Why does being separated from the divine hurt?

[Tarsonis]

No. Hell's torments are self-inflicted, to be separated from the divine by your own accord.

Why does being separated from the divine hurt?

Because the soul is ordinated toward God like a moth is drawn to a flame. Thus the pain of hell is the pain of a starving man.

[Northern Davincia]

No. Hell's torments are self-inflicted, to be separated from the divine by your own accord.

Why does being separated from the divine hurt?

God is the primordial love and giver of all true happiness, therefore to be separated from Him is to deprive oneself of all love and happiness. This creates an unbearable torment for the damned, who pursued happiness in life without God and received none.

[Hanafuridake]

Why does being separated from the divine hurt?

God is the primordial love and giver of all true happiness, therefore to be separated from Him is to deprive oneself of all love and happiness. This creates an unbearable torment for the damned, who pursued happiness in life without God and received none.

This sounds really hippyish to be honest. You're basically redefining the word love away from what it is to mean something completely different.

[New haven america]

Why does being separated from the divine hurt?

God is the primordial love and giver of all true happiness, therefore to be separated from Him is to deprive oneself of all love and happiness. This creates an unbearable torment for the damned, who pursued happiness in life without God and received none.

Why can't he be the better person and show love and compassion to those who may not have done so for him?

[Northern Davincia]

God is the primordial love and giver of all true happiness, therefore to be separated from Him is to deprive oneself of all love and happiness. This creates an unbearable torment for the damned, who pursued happiness in life without God and received none.

This sounds really hippyish to be honest. You're basically redefining the word love away from what it is to mean something completely different.

It's not a redefinition, it's agape. 1 John 4:8 is pretty clear on it.

[Napkizemlja]

Well, he is a defense lawyer.

John Adams defended the soldiers who perpetrated the Boston Massacre. Defense lawyers perform a noble service, even if some of them are slimy. Does Christ not advocate for the Guilty to his Father?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bp23S7l1ugY

[Northern Davincia]

God is the primordial love and giver of all true happiness, therefore to be separated from Him is to deprive oneself of all love and happiness. This creates an unbearable torment for the damned, who pursued happiness in life without God and received none.

Why can't he be the better person and show love and compassion to those who may not have done so for him?

He does. Still, those who reject God also reject His compassion, and He yearns for us to return like the prodigal sons we tend to be. It's up to us to accept these things.

[Tarsonis]

God is the primordial love and giver of all true happiness, therefore to be separated from Him is to deprive oneself of all love and happiness. This creates an unbearable torment for the damned, who pursued happiness in life without God and received none.

This sounds really hippyish to be honest. You're basically redefining the word love away from what it is to mean something completely different.

There’s more than one type of love. The Greeks had many words for it

[Tarsonis]

John Adams defended the soldiers who perpetrated the Boston Massacre. Defense lawyers perform a noble service, even if some of them are slimy. Does Christ not advocate for the Guilty to his Father?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bp23S7l1ugY

Hard to tell on the internet, even more so in this thread.

[Tarsonis]

God is the primordial love and giver of all true happiness, therefore to be separated from Him is to deprive oneself of all love and happiness. This creates an unbearable torment for the damned, who pursued happiness in life without God and received none.

Why can't he be the better person and show love and compassion to those who may not have done so for him?

God: *Incarnates in mankind, suffers and dies on the cross so that all may be reconciled to God. All one has to do is accept this gift. Literally anyone.*

You: “Yeah I don’t wanna do that. why can’t you just save everyone regardless?”

[ImperialRussia]

I’m Roman Catholic so I get it

[Hanafuridake]

Why can't he be the better person and show love and compassion to those who may not have done so for him?

God: *Incarnates in mankind, suffers and dies on the cross so that all may be reconciled to God. All one has to do is accept this gift. Literally anyone.*

You: “Yeah I don’t wanna do that. why can’t you just save everyone regardless?”

It would be easier if he just appeared in front of everyone and told them.

[New haven america]

God: *Incarnates in mankind, suffers and dies on the cross so that all may be reconciled to God. All one has to do is accept this gift. Literally anyone.*

You: “Yeah I don’t wanna do that. why can’t you just save everyone regardless?”

It would be easier if he just appeared in front of everyone and told them.

And also if certain Christians could agree about whether we should still be following the rules of the OT, and maybe he could also stop creating humans whose apparently sole purpose in life is to go to hell.

[Luminesa]

God: *Incarnates in mankind, suffers and dies on the cross so that all may be reconciled to God. All one has to do is accept this gift. Literally anyone.*

You: “Yeah I don’t wanna do that. why can’t you just save everyone regardless?”

It would be easier if he just appeared in front of everyone and told them.

He did, just 2,000 years ago. Most historians will say that a Jesus did exist and did preach, but they just will argue whether or not He was actually...well, God.

[Tarsonis]

It would be easier if he just appeared in front of everyone and told them.

And also if certain Christians could agree about whether we should still be following the rules of the OT, and maybe he could also stop creating humans whose apparently sole purpose in life is to go to hell.

Well Mr. Phelps, you’re the only one suggesting Gays inherently go to hell.

[New haven america]

And also if certain Christians could agree about whether we should still be following the rules of the OT, and maybe he could also stop creating humans whose apparently sole purpose in life is to go to hell.

Well Mr. Phelps, you’re the only one suggesting Gays inherently go to hell.

I wasn't aware the Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Ethiopian, Armenian, etc... Churches have stopped their thousand+ years traditions of believing that gay people go to Hell.

Also, you're the only one here who mentioned gay people. Nice slip up, totally doesn't help your case.

[Tarsonis]

Well Mr. Phelps, you’re the only one suggesting Gays inherently go to hell.

I wasn't aware the Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Ethiopian, Armenian, etc... Have stopped their thousands+ years traditions of believe that gay people go to Hell.

Only unrepentant sinners go to hell.

Also, you're the only one here who mentioned gay people. Nice slip up, totally doesn't help your case.

Oh please like if wasn’t painfully obvious what you were saying.

[Hanafuridake]

It would be easier if he just appeared in front of everyone and told them.

He did, just 2,000 years ago. Most historians will say that a Jesus did exist and did preach, but they just will argue whether or not He was actually...well, God.

2000 years ago is a really long time in terms of human history and includes a bunch of historically dubious elements that are impossible to verify.