Well, /his/?
Modus ponens:
If free will exists, then evil will exist.
Modus tollens:
If evil does not exist, then free will does not exist.
even if free will didn't exist in heaven it wouldn't matter anyway since you are already following god's will in the first place
like if someone made a law forbidding you from sticking your head in a pile of shit.
>>391244
I don't see how that works.
You wouldn't say free will doesn't exist because I can't choose to massacre an entire city with laser beams from my eyes.
Why would it affect my free will to choose whether to have a cup of tea or coffee it was impossible for me to choose to rape or kill?
>>391282
Seems to me Free Will is a huge ingredient in our struggle to get to Heaven. It's the only reason God can't simply prove his existence, right? Well - once we're in heaven that very important piece will be gone. So - what's the deal?
I submit Free Will is a made-up excuse, the "all-inclusive/works every time" excuse for there being not one single shred of evidence there is a god.
I say stop making this fucking thread over and over
Holy shit, it's like I'm in freshman philosophy again.
>>391319
>>391315
>buttmad christfags detected
Still upset about the delayed parousia?
>Evil can't exist in Heaven
Never heard of the fallen angel?
>why does evil exist
It doesn't, it's just relatively categorized as that by you.
>why don't I like everything that happens to me?
Why does a principal in a primary school stop young children from eating glue?
>>391388
>Why does a principal in a primary school stop young children from eating glue?
I don't know. If she is a Christian she should let us eat it and die so that we may be with Christ eternal
>>391235
>Is there free will in heaven?
>Yes, but people don't have retarded subconscious bullshit making them act like faggots and shitpost on the only good board on 4chan
>>391348
How could one have the free will to rebel against God when you know for certain he exists?
If that is the case, then God should be revealing himself to us all the time on earth. Because it won't take away our free will, but will help us believe in him.
>>391403
Why did God make us with retarded subconscious bullshit?
There is no free will in heaven.
>not defecting to satan and living eternity in hell so you can have free will
pussies
>>391348
manufactured resistance
>>391395
>implying God wants you yet
If he did, you'd already be dead.
The point is that we are supposedly the children eating glue. We don't know why we shouldn't, because it tastes funny and it's fun to idly fiddle with. The principal does, and for our own sake has to use methods we don't entirely understand to achieve his goals of us not eating glue and making a sticky mess all over.
It's more complex than that of course when you consider that he is supposed to have created the glue and the classroom and the children, but the point is that, presuming that God is "loving" in the first sense, he works in ways that are "mysterious" to us because we don't know what he knows.
>>391411
If God wanted us in heaven then we'd already be there.
>>391406
>A) the existence of the world in its current form with suffering is necessary for a reason unknown to us
>B) the creation of the world as it is is morally neutral and we merely rationalize it as best we can
>>391414
>I know better than God
I'm not a christian but that is how I understand the belief to be. We don't now what God knows therefor we aren't going to understand the way things are entirely.
>>391411
Mystery? He is completely silent, obscure, unfriendly, and unhelpful. He makes a dangerous, painful, limited, and flawed world for the poorly-designed creatures he is supposed to love. We can’t know what this reason is because it must be so complicated or profound that human minds could never grasp it. It’s a “mystery.”
Of course, there is no reason to believe such a mysterious reason exists, apart from its unwholesome use in preventing us from facing the fact that there is no God. Moreover, I can justify belief in the existence of hundreds of dreadful beings if I am allowed to use this excuse to explain away the complete lack of evidence for them. So clearly such an excuse is unallowable, especially to use it so arbitrarily in just the one case—that is simply hypocrisy.
For even if there were such a mysterious reason, it would entail something unacceptable about God: it would entail he was not the Supreme Being. For if there is anything that exists that is so powerful even God cannot overcome it, and so overwhelming it literally compels God to remain totally quiet and inactive against his every longing to express his boundless compassion, then God is a miserable prisoner, a slave to a far superior entity. Whatever this dreadnought was, this cosmic bogeyman, it would clearly not be created by God, for no compassionate being would create something that would so hog-tie him as to ensure the needless misery of billions of creatures and stymie his every desire to stop it. Nor could it be a part of God, since God is supposed to be perfect and all-compassionate (not to mention omnipotent and omniscient). But, as every theologian would have it, there cannot be anything that is not God and not created by God. And even if for some reason such a thing existed, and was superior to God in power—as this thing would have to be—it would be the Supreme Being, uncreated and mightiest of all, reducing God to a quivering, helpless piss-ant.
>>391405
He already did, and people still don't believe
>>391420
I'm saying that if he wants us to believe in Him he should try more actively to interact with people on a daily basis. Imagine if your own personal Jesus spirit was always just following you around, there to talk or help you. The Christian percent of the population would probably be 99.9999%
>>391424
This.
I mean exactly how hard is it for an omnipotent being to blow up a few stars and spell "God is real" in the sky.
>implying evil exists
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/8578/8578-h/8578-h.htm
>>391419
>he is not the supreme being
Because he isn't acting how we believe to be the best way? He can be supreme and still for whatever reason act as mysteriously as he supposedly does, there's no need to split God into one entity that is totally benevolent in every way at every level yet subordinate to whatever big spoopy lovecraftian horror you suggested, it could just be that God chooses for whatever reason that we cannot as mortals comprehend entirely to act in the way he does.
I'll propose to you the second answer to the question of evil:
>the creation of the universe with "evil" is a morally neutral metaphysical necessity
...which I think better (or more simply) responds to the question of evil
>>391439
Why is bone cancer a metaphysical necessity?
>>391460
Because - the exact nature being known only by God - without the existence of bone cancer the universe wouldn't be able to exist.
It's like saying "well if God's so powerful can he take a shit so big even he can't clean it up?"
If you're willing to suppose that the existence of the universe is necessary (which evidently it must be because it exists) then it isn't much of a logical jump to suppose that this is the only configuration of the universe that functions according to the laws of physics and logic (that supposedly are the only ones that could ever work).
So it could be that a Universe without bone cancer is like a triangle with 4 sides; logically impossible.
I'm not claiming that's true, but that's a possibility.
>>391480
>Because without the existence of bone cancer the universe wouldn't be able to exist.
Then God is not omnipotent
>>391480
But that is an awkward fit for explaining the way things are. What does God need a Big Bang for? That’s a terribly slow, messy, complicated way to create a universe, much less people. Why the long, complex process of condensation from energy to matter to stars to galaxies? Why the vast expanse of the end result? You would think a god would simply create the whole universe at once, or much more quickly at least, and only make it as large as would suit us. There would be no need of long drawn-out processes, nor of other planets or galaxies, much less all the hundreds of subatomic particles we know of.
“God did it” doesn’t predict any of these things, nor does it explain them very well. God has no need of quarks, for example, or neutrinos, or galaxies, or billions of years of slow, mechanical processes. Nor can we make any predictions about any of these things from the “God did it” hypothesis. Can we deduce from “God did it” how many types of quark there are? Or that there should even be quarks? Or how long it would take that god, from the initial moment of creation, to make a human being? Or that there would be such things as galaxies? Or such thongs as neutrinos?
>>391486
Is God not omnipotent because he can't make a triangle with 4 sides?
Is God even a conscious actor that would care about bone cancer in the grander scheme of things?
Taking into account Pascal's wager, everyone should try and believe anyway, whether you want to or not
>>391480
>if God's so powerful can he take a shit so big even he can't clean it up?"
But can God take a shit so big even he can't clean it up?
>>391497
>Is God not omnipotent because he can't make a triangle with 4 sides?
That's completely different than what is being suggested. If something had 4 sides and was called a triangle then that just means you've changed the definition of a triangle. It's about as impossible as making a Pawn move like a Knight in chess. You seem to think that the universe just couldn't possibly exist any other way because of a similar reason, but invented rules and reality just don't work together like that. For example, there is no logical necessity for quarks to exist. It is not a logical contradiction to make a universe without quarks.
>>391492
No, you can't deduce any of those things. But that isn't what God is supposed to answer.
>slow, messy, complicated
Does God care? Like I've suggested before, is there even any other way the Universe could exist? Is the Big Bang even an event that actually happened, or did whatever process God created the universe by simply lead us to believe in the big bang?
>>391499
Theoretically no, because he could just make himself able of cleaning it up later. But I'm not sure that's the nature of God, to take shits or make triangles and so forth. I don't think that if God exists he is necessarily a conscious actor upon the universe like us mortals.
>>391498
No, we should all try NOT to believe. Because God only lets atheists into heaven!
>>391511
Saying “God’s ways are a mystery" would only be making the god hypothesis less plausible than any naturalist theory that already predicts and explains all these strange things. And there are several theories that do that. Scientists are testing them even as we speak. The god hypothesis, by contrast, makes few if any testable predictions.
>>391510
>there is no logical necessity for quarks to exist
Isn't there? God knows.
>invented rules
"Logic" is something a bit more transcendent than that. For all we know, God could actually just be the set of metaphysical, physical, and logical rules the universe operates under and that is why things are the way they are. It seems a very futile argument to me.
>>391518
>God
>Black
>>391523
Is there any empirical theory that deduces the cause of the big bang? I don't think so, it's a philosophical question once you get sufficiently removed from testable physics. Which is where God becomes the answer as the prime mover and so forth, if you subscribe to that kind of thing.
>>391524
>Isn't there? God knows.
2+2 = 5. How? God knows.
>>391533
What if the Big Bang created God?
>>391533
In the realm of cosmology, the debate between theism and atheism is really only a quibble over details. Both sides agree there must be some ultimate entity, which is the eternal first cause and ground of all being, the end point of all explanations. They only disagree over what properties this “ultimate being” has. Theists think it has a whole plethora of amazing powers and attributes, including the most complex mind imaginable. But as atheists point out, there is no evidence for any of those tacked-on assumptions. There are only two properties we can be sure the ultimate being has: its nature is to exist, and it had a reasonable chance of producing our universe exactly as we see it. We can’t say anything more than that without sufficient evidence. And there is no actual evidence for any of the traditional divine attributes.
Chaotic Inflation theory is a reasonable inference from contemporary scientific observations and understanding, and predicts everything we observe. It holds that those properties of the universe that can be different than they are, like the mass of quarks, “froze” into place when the universe cooled, and due to chaotic or quantum indeterminism, different parts of the universe randomly ended up with different features—some with no quarks, some with quarks of a different mass, and so on. Yet the universe inflated so quickly, that once these properties froze in place in each tiny spot, that area grew to a size thousands of times larger than we could ever see. Thus, the universe we observe appears everywhere the same—but if we could see far enough, we would see different parts of the universe with completely different properties. There is nothing we know that could stop this process, so it must go on forever—and may already have. So if inflation did occur, and it was chaotic, then nearly every possible universe would exist, including ours.
>>391539
Well shit son
>>391536
No, a better analogy is that 2+2=4 and God cannot change that because it's fundamental logical principles that are a part of him or that he is a part of.
We would then theorize that 2+2=5, and wonder why it's actually 4.
>>391544
I agree with you. But I didn't hear of this Chaotic Inflation Theory before.
>>391551
No, you're wrong. It's not possible for 2+2 to equal 4. The reason is a mystery though. Only God knows it. Just like only God knows the reason that a universe can't exist without quarks.
>>391560
We give the value of 2, and we give the value to 4
>>391560
But that would be making the assumption from arrogance, rather than accepting our ignorance.
We don't know that the universe can only exist with bone cancer for a reason only God knows, but we can say that God - if he exists - would know why bone cancer exists.
>>391575
We don't know that the universe can only exist with 2+2=5 for a reason only God knows, but we can say that God - if he exists - would know why 2+2=5
>>391583
Are you saying that the existence of bone cancer is equivalent to the statement 2+2=5? I don't get it
>>391592
I'm saying two things
1. It is not possible to make a universe without bone cancer.
2. It is not possible to make 2+2 equal anything but 5
Whether or not these make sense to you doesn't matter. The reasons for these things are mysterious, only God knows them.
>>391598
I'm genuinely hurt I thought this was a preddy good discussion we were having
It's observable that the universe exists, it's observable that bone cancer exists, and it's observable that 2+2=4. Why? Idk, God would know though.
>>391602
Saying "bone cancer exists" is not the same as saying "a universe cannot exist without bone cancer". The latter is nonsense, just like saying 2+2=5
>>391607
But I didn't say that. I said it'd be perfectly rational if that were the case, because of the fundamentals of biochemistry and evolution and so forth that would produce humans in their form, that are tied to physical interactions etc etc....
>>391616
>because of the fundamentals of biochemistry and evolution and so forth that would produce humans in their form, that are tied to physical interactions etc etc....
You're basically saying that "the universe MUST exist this way because it DOES exist this way". This is nonsense, it only begs the question. Obviously a universe without bone cancer wouldn't have biochemistry and evolution like in this universe.
>>391628
Would biochemistry that somehow eliminated bone cancer or whatever ailment still function at all, though?
>>391633
Yes. Or it wouldn't exist. Does chess have bone cancer or quarks? No. But it functions perfectly fine within its own rules.
>>391643
But it doesn't. Or does it?
Anyway, chess is both a social construct and doesn't give rise to intelligent life.
>>391651
If we assume God exists, the universe is both a construct and could be made in a way that doesn't give rise to intelligent life.
And chess may not give rise to intelligence, but here is a game that does: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_Game_of_Life
You can build an entire computer, or an AI in this game. And all it has is 4 simple rules. Much simpler than this crazy, complex universe. Hell it is simpler than chess.
This is awful.
>>391665
But is it 4 (or maybe more) dimensional and as complex as the current universe, giving the same potential for whatever AI or "life form" that you create?
>>391682
Yes, it is Turing Complete. All possible things can be made in it. But the building blocks are much simpler (just on and off blocks instead of 16 types of quarks and who knows what else) and the rules are simple (just 4 instead of all the shit you learn in a physics PhD)
>>391692
Except things in more than 2 spatial dimensions or 1 temporal dimension?
>>391725
A 3D, 4D, or 23984D world could easily be made in it. You could also have multiple temporal dimensions running as well if you wanted.
>>391734
Highly interdasting. Could you replicate the universe then, given enough time, with just those off/on blocks?
>>391754
Yes.
A fun comic with a similar idea: https://xkcd.com/505/
I wish there was a purely history board. Threads like this are awful when I just want to talk about history
>>391754
If you're a faggot who thinks all physical processes are computational in nature yes.
Otherwise no, thinking of physical processes as incremental numerical processes hurts your understanding of physics.
>>391764
Have you tried:
>Hiding threads you don't like
>Only posting in threads you do like
>Making threads on topics that interest you
I'm sorry that some people are interested in subjects that you aren't. But you have to learn to coexist with them.
>>391774
All of them. Simulations are approximations, always.
>>391788
The universe is a simulation. We're living in the Matrix right now.
>>391793
Theres a fairly convincing argument that gives a high chance for the fact that were living in the matrix actually.
A professor I had talked about it one class, and iirc it postulates a couple situations for our existence:
>1- The real version of humanity have made a "universal simulation".
This assumes that were not real, and that technology of the real human race has advances far enough to create a matrix or universe simulation. We are living in that simulation.
>2- Universal simulations are immoral and therefore nonexistent.
This postulates that while creating a universal simulation (IE the matrix) is possible, it will be deemed immoral by the time technology advances far enough to achieve this, and therefore a matrix simulation will not exist. Therefore, we are living in the real world still.
>3- Its not possible.
The final option is that such a thing is not possible and a matrix or universe simulation cannot be created under the laws of physics.
All in all, that gives a pretty fair chance that we are living in a simulation world and not the real one.
>>391235
nice strawman
>>392172
What is the point of heaven if it is just as shitty and evil as earth then? Or a better question, what is the point of earth if you can be sent from heaven to hell?
im not baptized or religious or anything
there is no free will in heaven
you are dead
a soul without a body
if it exists
>>392205
According to the Bible you get a body in heaven
>>392119
>sometimes
Then that means a world with free-will and no evil is possible. Which means that God could have made that world instead of this one.
If you made it to heaven, your spiritual maturity is such that even with free will you would never will an evil act. Christ it's not that hard
>>394008
Why doesn't God imbue us with this spiritual maturity at birth? Hell, why doesn't he just start us off in heaven with it? Then both God and the human get what they want
>>391235
There is no evil in heaven because the people who are evil out of their own free will are not allowed inside while the guys who choose to be good get in. Next question please
>>394120
So you can just choose to be evil once inside
>>394016
because working for something is infinitely more gratifying than making instant gratification your literal god
>>394219
God doesn't have to work for anything. Gratification seems unnecessary for both the human and God in the grand scheme of things. Once they are together both parties are satisfied and fulfilled.
>>394230
I'm not even arguing for a Christian God. but a perfect being, or the absolute, is necessarily less perfect if it does not individuate into a multiplicity of souls
>>391235
>implying it's not just our personal interpretation of evil
>implying 'evil' is objective
>>394142
lol, this is the quality of fucking fedora arguments. "well what if you just like, punk God lmfao"
>>394283
>I have no response
>I know, I'll call him a fedora!
>>391793
Lel, that comic makes some good points. Never thought of that
>>391235
>>398573
>antropomorphizing the subsistent act of being with silly human morals
>>398684
>the subsistent act of being
Hmm... Pic related
>>394120
What do you define as being good and evil though?
>>400506
>muh Jewish laws
>>398573
>...
>Then why didn't he?
>free will
>Could god have created a universe with free will but without evil?
>yes
>then why didn't he?
>free will
Case closed.
Two bonus solutions
>Evil exists
>only yes
>Then god is not good
Bing fucki-o
>>400369
>being this retarded
>ignoring the teachings of Saint Augustine
>misinterpreting the seed-spilling passage to mean masturbation instead of refusal to have sex with your spouse
I blame Luther.
>>401957
>misinterpreting the seed-spilling passage to mean masturbation instead of refusal to have sex with your spouse
The subsisting act of being subsists seed spilling
>>398684
If you think God cares about what you do with your genitals then you've anthromorphized him
>>401957
>I blame Luther
Blame St. Thomas Aquinas, nigga. The dude not only said any sex that was not done with intent of procreation must be sinful, but argued masturbation was an even more grave sin than rape.
>>402800
He also thought divorce was OK if a wizard cast a permanent spell on you and your wife that causes you to not be able to conceive, but other girls are okay
>>391235
all the evil people go to hell.
pretty logical
>>391424
but muh test of faith
>>401950
So "Free Will" is the answer to both the question "Why does evil exist" and "Why didn't God make a universe without evil and free will"?
>christian logic
>>403110
Yes. The free will that God caused, who knew in advance what effect it would have. Also, the entities he gave it to are somehow to blame for this
>>403120
But they need to have free will! Otherwise they wouldn't be able to TRULY love.
>why do they need to be able to love
So that they can fulfill their purpose, what God made them for, to love God!
>Why does God want to be loved?
GOD WORKS IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS
>>403069
But people are not either evil or good, they have free will to choose to act in either way. That free will still exists in heaven so even those who make it there still have the capacity to do evil, thus evil exists in heaven
>>391298
There is no "struggle" to get into heaven. It's simple really. All you have to do is accept your acceptance and trust in God. God loves you and sent his son to die for your sins abd the sins of the world. You are accepted by God out of his infinite love, you just have to accept it. That's all it takes to get to heaven. Life is a struggle sometimes, what happens afterword doesn't have to be.
>>403493
This is why I'm not Protestant.
>>392177
You're closer to God and that's a reward in and by itself you ungrateful shit.
>>403845
The idea of a "struggle" to heaven isn't biblical. It has nothing to do with Protestant vs Catholic.
>>392177
After the apocalypse there will be a new heaven and a new earth
>>392177
At least for humans, there's a selection process to put the good and the evil apart. Lucifer wasn't born in earth so he didn't have to pass the test. He was expulsed when it became obvious that he could not have passed it.
>>391235
>implying heaven isn't merely a state of mind one enters by doing good works and being humble
It is best to look at Christianity from a philosophical/spiritualist view.
>>398573
>huur dur God can't exist because of my arbitrary arguments that only prove my ignorance of the topic
Maybe you should analyze the philosophical principles of religions, not perpetually argue the existence of a higher power (there is a higher power in your life, even if you don't call it "God").
>>404026
It is. Paul and James expressed struggle and even make it very clear.
Working out one's Salvation in fear and trembling is NOT a statement of easy unlimited free credit card Jesus like your shitty theology is promoting.
>>403386
Then heaven is shitty and pointless.
>>403854
>closer to abusive boyfriend
>a reward
>>404444
What's the point of two shitty places?
>>404477
Why would an omniscient God need a selection process?
>>404538
The Bible is a terrible place to get your morals. Religions should just go die. Spirituality can be secular
>>405826
>The Bible is a terrible place to get your morals
Where do you think modern society gets it's morals from?
Europe adopted Christianity, then spread it worldwide during colonialism.
>>405836
>Where do you think modern society gets it's morals from?
The Greeks
>>405836
>Europe adopted Christianity
More like Christianity adopted Europe
>>405856
this desu.
>>405836
Modern society gets its morals from a combination of the negative emotions associated with being harmed and seeing people get harmed, the desire to be free and accumulate wealth, and the desire to control people with intractably complex platitudinous discussions from youth so people stay confused and keep thinking the answer or understanding is just over the horizon in some not-complex-enough-to-ever-explain-reality platitudinous conversation which gets played out on TV, in families, in holy buildings, and in schools across the world.
You think modern morality is at odds with what happens? It isn't. That's why people see individual successes as the hallmark of wise sustainability. Many single victories comprising the natural arc of growth of modern civilization. Acceptable levels of harm is the current standard of morality, you can get there from any combination of any ontological set of ideas people call a morality, including Christianity.
>>391235
>tfw born too late to troll god
>>405856
>catholicism represents all of Christianity
>>406772
Isaiah sounds like a straight playa.
>>391235
>why does evil exist, free will
Evil is an extreme consequence of free will. However, if you even want to enter the Biblican worldview, you have to acknowledge that sin has deeply infected humanity ( Romans 3:10-18) but also that man was created good, as in, free from sin ( Genesis 1:31). Since God also takes no pleasure in death ( Ezekiel 18:32) he would prefer that people obtain a way to be saved from their sins through Jesus ( John 14:6) as opposed to wiping them all out, and sparing no one.
The next few will be shorter.
>Is there evil in heaven?
Right now? Probably not, but because of the fallen angels, there was for a time. Similarly to how there was no evil in the garden until transgression came, also there is likely not evil in heaven.
>how will we be in heaven?
Very literally like angels (See Matt 22). After sanctification, we will become more saintly, and enter the kingdom of heaven.
>>398573
>could God have created a universe without evil?
He did.
>>404694
I never said that striving toward a holy and Christ-like life isn't a struggle. It is hard to try to rise above the world and the flesh. But salvation, the actual gift is salvation is free from struggle on our part. We accept God's gift of love and then "struggle" to live a godly life out of gratitude for that gift.
>>407398
*of salvation
>>391235
of course there is free will in heaven. that's why only the good can come in. doofus.
>>407398
No. That's only the ability to be saved that is done without the human agent struggling for without Christ, it would not be possible. To take your position is to posit that anyone who accepts the unlimited credit card of Jesus and slack off and revel in sin will be saved by virtue of such belief.
>>407427
> unlimited credit card Jesus
That's not my belief. Nor do I believe that one can "slack off and revel sin" and expect entry into heaven. I simply believe that salvation is attained by believing that Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world. Maintaining said salvation is done by striving to live a godly life, which is a struggle due to our sinful nature but we try to do so everyday in gratitude to God for his gift. That being said, we are all sinners and will always fall short of the glory of God. We were "saved" two thousand years ago when Jesus died on the cross and then conquered death. By accepting that act as the gift that it is grants us eternal life. By turning out back on God, "slacking off and revel in sin" we can indeed lose our salvation. I simply believe that attaining salvation itself isn't a "struggle".
>>406850
>Since God also takes no pleasure in death
But he does
>The wicked plot against the righteous
>and gnash their teeth at them;
>but the Lord laughs at the wicked,
>for he knows their day is coming
>>408165
God laughs at these wicked people because He knows that in the end He is the only true and perfect God and He will have the last say and He will judge their wickedness. Very comforting really.
>>391235
Angels live in the heavens and they have free will. Though presumably once they sin they get ejected out of heaven, since thats what happened with the demons.
Humans get a bodily resurrection, they don't go to heaven. When the bodily resurrection happens presumably we would still have free will and thus evil could still exist.
A human being is not his soul driving his body like it was a horse. A human being is body and soul conjoined. A human without a body is incomplete.
I'm pretty sure a soul on its own would be like an essence with some sort of frozen intellect. It would probably just have a freeze frame of memories and conclusions. I doubt that it would actually deliberate or will anything.Most of our mental operations are bound up with the body in some way or another. Memory is something stored from past experiences so it would maybe make sense that those stick around through the period before the resurrection, I doubt that much else would go on though.
>>391492
Let's say whatever god is, it's the canvas...
The materials used on the canvas are the hardest part because it's the base of everything else to come, so they will be incredibly "messy" or complex.
The actual painting is the interaction between the materials and the canvas. Just a whole different level of complexity because every time the brush strokes the canvas a new stroke or iteration is developed...the process evolves.
That leads me to think that the viewing of this artwork is helping the artist evolve as they create continuously...maybe we are dreaming so we can evolve. Conscious dreaming (day dreaming or just thought in general) gathering information and sub conscious dreaming (sleep dreams) to process that info and develop new methods...being and becoming...
all of this being a speculative metaphor and possible nonsense though...good day
>>403854
If God is omnipresent, how can you ever be closer or farther away from him?
>>408765
The price of being a sentient mass of physical reality
>>408290
Why would God laugh at the thought of sending someone to hell?
>>408781
God would simultaneously laugh and cry, like humans do when somebody "goes to hell"...
>>408803
>anthropomorphising God
>>408813
It's dangerous but crucial
>>408845
>heresy is crucial
>>408855
Are you still not getting it?
>>407561
So one must maintain Salvation by living a godly life and not slack off or risk losing it. That already means that Salvation itself is a struggle for to fall down and give into sin is to lose such in the first place. There is a literal struggle to ensure that such Salvation is maintained so that one will not be damned.
>>391235
Have you opened a bible?
Obviously the people who chose to be evil aren't let in heaven
>>391411
>>391419
>>391523
>>391598
>>391411
>>403381
MYSTERIOUS WAYS
>>408862
Getting what? That God is a man in the sky that laughs, cries, and sits at a throne?
>>410664
That's what always greased my grouse, too, how anything bad is immediately explained as part of the Lord's Plan, but anything good/complex/beautiful is immediately seized upon as evidence of a divine creator.
Why not argue the opposite, that the beautiful things/good are all part of a plan to deceive us?
>>408781
Most likely laughter of the vanity in their actions, almost like when a little kid tries to beat up a buff adult
>>405856
Nikolas was a Byzantine priest
>>412139
The god Odin's role during the Yuletide period has been theorized as having influenced concepts of St. Nicholas in a variety of facets, including his long white beard and his gray horse for nightly rides (see Odin's horse Sleipnir), which was traded for reindeer in North America.
>>406772
Christposters BTFO.
>>406772
How do christfags deal with being so intellectually dishonest when evaluating their own religion VS others'?
