>I can do no wrong, for I do not know what it is.

God DID know - and he wept about the inevitability of it to Jesus. He knew they would eat of the fruit of knowledge and he knew that he could not stop it, because to stop it would circumvent what he was trying to achieve by the creation of man in the first place.

>God being an all powerful all knowing being could just will it to not be necessary
He chose not to. Perhaps I wasn't clear on that. Or none of it happened and we're brains in vats - who the frick knows. The book's logic holds its own, though, if you actually read it - which people often don't bother to before criticising it.

Can't much speak for the New Testament, mind. Lot of bullshit in there.

thus, you can only teach those who want to learn.

Bullshit. I could Clockwork Orange anything I want into you and vice versa. You're saying things that sound clever without actually thinking about them.

If only God could have known somehow...

Omnipotence is never implied. God's only able to ascertain what can happen. Once freewill is in play there's nothing He can do. Even the angels have it obviously.

There is a theory the great plan is to redeem the serpent. Pretty dope theory

This. When the serpent said they will be like God, it means the human being will know the existence of good and evil, and who says what is right and what is wrong? God. By being like God, Man created it's own truth, separating itself from the Eternal, thus dying.

so the exact opposite, why did you do it then?

Satan means adversary. In the bible the serpent was just one of the creatures living in Eden together with Adan and Eve. For some reason it decided to do an little trolling and doom us all. Maybe envy?

Somehow the fallen angel and the serpent got mixed together.

thus the operative factor is willingness to learn.

I'm stating objective fact and you're refusing to learn it, because you want to engage in a fantasy that you can force someone to learn.

Nope. See, I'm 100% correct, and you're an idiot, which gives me an excuse to be right, and watch someone squirm and struggle. which feels pretty great.

>God being an all powerful all knowing being could just will it to not be necessary
He chose not to. Perhaps I wasn't clear on that. Or none of it happened and we're brains in vats - who the frick knows. The book's logic holds its own, though, if you actually read it - which people often don't bother to before criticising it.

Can't much speak for the New Testament, mind. Lot of bullshit in there.

[...]
Bullshit. I could Clockwork Orange anything I want into you and vice versa. You're saying things that sound clever without actually thinking about them.

you're saying things that sound right but aren't, because you're taking a simplified view of them, your own experiences, etc.

Torture, for instance, doesn't actually work because the incentive structure is "if i say what you want to hear you'll stop."

You've only taught me that you're an idiot, determined to be wrong. Which doesn't bother me. You can sit over there and be as wrong as you want.

🙂

You have failed to prove you can force people to learn what you want them to learn, by "helping" me learn that you're stupid.

🙂

you're describing an incentive structure where its established that, "if you do this again it will hurt." Thus the person learns not to do it again, unless they want to be hurt.

this is an easy mistake to make, but also an elementary mistake. as you're confusing the how with why.

your mistake was explained and the correct answer was provided. You are wrong.

Thanks for proving yourself wrong.

Thanks for further undermining your own argument.

Yet, you sit there, proving you can do neither. For what you're trying to teach is false and you're rejecting correct information.

Its only a very stupid person who thinks they can force someone to learn. and, what, simply because you can injure someone it will convince them to avoid injury?

okay, try to teach me something I'm unwilling to learn.

oh wait, you've been trying, and you've failed, because I already know you're stupid and wrong, and have a more complete understanding of human cognition than you probably ever will, because you're unwilling to give up simple ideas like "imma learn u gud boy"

>australian
that explains why you can't understand basic shit.

you may as well be trying to teach me why 1x1=2

No, it really wouldn't. You could have unlimited time, and you would still fail. Just like everything else in your life.

>says he has to go to bed
>doesn’t go to bed

I’d go to bed, but I have to stay up later than I want to to argue with strangers on the internet in order to get the last word and prove that I’m correct

>it would be different
the ultimate cope

I only trust that you are stupid and believe something as stupid a 1x1=2

well, okay then, lets go back into incentive structures that you stumbled into earlier.

See, the child already knows that pain is bad, therefore the incentive structure exists already. Do thing, get hurt. Don't do thing, don't get hurt. The child already wants to avoid pain therefore the child avoids pain. He wasn't "taught" anything, he just learned another way to avoid pain, because he was willing to learn it.

The one and only time you can force someone to learn is if there are no other options. But there are always other options. Even if you threaten and deliver pain upon "failing," one can simply learn to endure/ignore/enjoy pain.

thus further proving you can't teach anyone anything, only help the willing to learn.

Yes, it would be different if you were willing to learn. But you aren't. Thus can't be taught anything.

You said no, but you just confirmed

Yes, it would be different if you were willing to learn. But you aren't. Thus can't be taught anything.

every post at this point is just further proving you wrong.

No it isn't. It's 8pm.

It’s almost like you can’t force people to learn or something.

flipside, only if someone saying what you want to hear, has learned anything but how to get you to shut the frick up.

i see

yeah pagans throwing infants from ramparts was so humane and non barbaric. frick off back to plebbit. barbarism is humanity and always has been

>a close reading of the bible
You mean the bible written by men and compiled by the catholic church? Protestants are moronic

it's why they hated the Westboro Baptist Church so much, because they are hardcore calvinists and their makes them be honest about America unlike evangelicals

Calvinists can skullfrick a baby and still think god’s letting them into heaven

No they don’t, since they do not believe in Jesus.

He is part of the holy trinity, yes he is.

Not entirely, they don't believe Jesus was the son of God. Just like Muslims regard Jesus as a Prophet like Mohammed.

Then why did God give us a reward system in our brain that Satan appeals to, while staying faithful to God gives us nothing? It doesn't make any sense, it's attributing virtue to what is essentially self harm.

>It goes back to the garden of eden when Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge. Had they never eaten the apple they would live in ignorance of the world and of good and evil, but that apple opened their brains to those concepts and made them aware.

Then why did God give us a reward system in our brain that Satan appeals to, while staying faithful to God gives us nothing? It doesn't make any sense, it's attributing virtue to what is essentially self harm.

https://i.imgur.com/PSCwE3l.png

>I can do no wrong, for I do not know what it is.
What the frick was his problem?

reminds me of that old european form of christianity, adamism or something where. its like religious anarchy where they claim they do do whatever they want without good and evil as a way to revert back to the time of the garden of eden

Just fyi, the story of Adam and Eve has them eat a "fruit", not an apple. If you make such a basic mistake about the text of the scripture, people will not take your analysis seriously.

Ok. It's silly to let said "mistake" be a factor.

Interesting since most History is hotly contested. Seems the room to make a mistake is pretty wide.

>I don't see the point.
Why do you need to?
Who are you exactly?

The Old Testament makes a lot more sense once you recognize that the israelites never saw Yahweh as some benevolent, loving deity the way Christians do. Yahweh in the OT explicitly enjoys fricking with people, and humans always piss him off for one reason or another, so he tortures and kills them on a whim, tells them to cut off their foreskins, tells them to kill their children, allows satan to ruin their lives and kill their families, etc.

The story is meant to be a metaphor for how we gained the knowledge of good and evil. An easy explanation for adults to teach children.

>The story is meant to be a metaphor for how we gained the knowledge of good and evil. An easy explanation for adults to teach children.
What the frick are you talking about? If it's a metaphor then what is the supposed true story of how we "gained the knowledge of good and evil" and not the "kid version" that's written in the holy book?

I think the thing is we really don't know as when we gained that knowledge we weren't developed enough to comprehend the moment as being so monumental it just became common practice. The story may have been passed down but time and generations can twist a story or make it lost to time all together.

God literally asked for human sacrifice though. Changing his mind at the last second doesn't mean he didn't ask for it, you dumb dumb homosexual moronic frick.

Exactly, it was le epic troll by God.

you can have a little meltdown all you like, it’s just disingenuous. the entire point is that god doesn’t find human sacrifice acceptable, the feigned request for it is just a way to get from A to B and show us that. your criticism is on the level of saying shakespeare supports child murder because we don’t see richard punished until an act or so later. the actual content of the story is that human sacrifice is bad, but you focus on the fact that it was asked for and ignore the fact that it was asked for just so it could be outright rejected as acceptable. continue to get very upset and mad though

>I was merely le pretending to want you to kill your son lol EPIC TROL'D
All this does is reinforce anon's point that God likes to frick with people. I'd be interested to see your mental gymnastics around the Job story and how you justify that behavior.

What point are you making then? That he asked for something so he could make a point of saying it was bad? Seems bizarre to lump in something so pedantic with that other stuff.

I'm not the anon you were originally replying to and it's not "pedantic" to BTFO you and your reddit quips.

>reddit reddit reddit
You should go back there.

Jesus you are a whiny homosexual sore loser. Just go back b***h homie.

You can easily defend job if you don’t approach ancient texts in the low IQ cinemasins plinkett style that is trendy among dilettantes. People find greek tragedy beautiful despite the fact that the overarching message is always to trust in the gods even when in the short term that can be inscrutable and cause suffering for reasons we don’t understand. Nobody anyone with 5 brain cells listens to would criticise those texts on the level you are interfacing with job on, which is a framing narrative. “Bible” means library and there are many genres of writing in it, for example, nobody would take the psalms literally because they’re poems. Job is fascinating to people without a weird chip on their shoulder because it confronts life in a way that is very frank and honest. Good people get fricked over and aren’t rewarded for being good. People assume job must have done something to deserve his pain but he hasn’t. All he can do, in the face of a universe which is incomprehensible to him (which is exactly how god answers job) is continue living and trust that everything will work out ultimately. He gets over his loss and new things to be happy about come his way. How you could read such an early expression of human grief and start talking about how totally mean god is boggles my mind, it’s so fricking facile. Of course god is mean in it because life is mean. It’s confronting that. In the same way, isaac is about how human sacrifice is wrong, but if you focus on the logic of the framing narrative to arrive at that you’ll miss the entire forest for the trees. Please never get into any sort of art interpretation

>Of course god is mean in it because life is mean
I'm really not sure why you wrote all this asspain and seethe when you literally agree that God is a dickhead in the story.

aren’t you ignoring the historical context of the time like how there was actual child sacrifice done by heathens which is what prompted God to pull this stunt

It was to lay the ground work for "oh I guess you don't have to kill children for this new religion". Critical reading, anon

human sacrifice was indeed a staple of every developing civilization. fewer mouths to feed, better chance for the rest to survive. not every civilization ritualized it though.

you can have a little meltdown all you like, it’s just disingenuous. the entire point is that god doesn’t find human sacrifice acceptable, the feigned request for it is just a way to get from A to B and show us that. your criticism is on the level of saying shakespeare supports child murder because we don’t see richard punished until an act or so later. the actual content of the story is that human sacrifice is bad, but you focus on the fact that it was asked for and ignore the fact that it was asked for just so it could be outright rejected as acceptable. continue to get very upset and mad though

It was just a prank Abraham, look the camera is right there!

>Excessive pride
??
You can feel proud for others anon, you'll know this if you have a kid, which clearly you don't.
Pride is a sin when you are just proud of yourself and it's derived from ego drive, not love and happiness for other people's paths in life.
I hope you someday experience this.

[...]

All of posters ITT with the “oh how could God be so mean shit” need to understand that hell isn’t burning fire and pitchforks and cruelty. It is dying and going to a place where you aren’t connected to the Holy Spirit/God. It’s terrible not because of torture, but because you are separated from this universal capital G God force that loves you.
TO PUT IT IN MOVIE TERMS: End of Evangelion, Orange goo is heaven, except you maintain a deeper sense of individuality and get to be connected to God. If you go to hell you are like Shinji and Asuka, except your individualism is you being an individual in a Godless void, not on a beach with a redhead Tsundere.
God is your Father and wants you to hang out with him at his barbecue. But he doesn’t want to force you to go, even if he knows you’d enjoy it more than jerking off alone in your room.

"Ok"

well i guess start by reading the entire book of revelation because what i just said isnt exactly controversial take at all

But what makes a person who they are? How do we come to be?
From a scientific perspective, it’s a mixture of nature and nurture. Our parents, our surroundings, our genes. By the time you start “making decisions,” you are already a distinct being. Except you had no control over any of the factors which made you into the person you are. And you could say “well, even in spite of that, you could see the error of your ways and not do [thing that gets you punished eternally].” But you can’t, can you? In order to have that capacity, there still has to be some aspect of your nature and experience which gives it to you, and you have no control over that.
And if it’s from a spiritual perspective, you just are your soul, which again you have no control over.
So people can’t have free will, and some people are just predestined to suffer eternally due to bad luck. And an omniscient god knows exactly who is going to suffer eternally from before they’re born, due to factors they could never control, and lets them be born and suffer anyway.

You’re using way too much reason here.

Trying to understand creation through the limited scope of human logic will lead to madness and the loss of your soul.
You have to accept there are things beyond comprehension that you will never fully understand.

It's the people that make it evil. Just like people believe Jesus hates gay people.

Interesting then why is Israel currently killing civilians using illegal chemical weapons?

White Phosphorus isn't an illegal chemical weapon as long as it's not being used as an incendiary according to UN treaty.

Because they became satan worshippers after breaking the covenant and killing the son of God.

They're the synagogue of satan

>why do israelites believe that Christ is boiling in extreme in hell
Jews don't even believe in hell, so that is factually incorrect and just a hateful slander.

>why does the israeli rabbinical tradition only start up hundreds of years after Jesus died
This is also untrue, rabbit literally just means "teacher", and Judaism had sages since the very beginning. The rabbinic tradition as distinct from a priestly tradition dates to the 1st century, not centuries after Christ.

Are you not aware that the Talmud is just a collection of debates between rabbis, and not canon law? Just because one ancient israelite said something stupid and edgy doesn't mean that it was ever anything important. There are many instances in the talmud of someone saying something inflammatory and it was recorded to contextualize the reply when a rabbi admonishes him for speaking foolishly.

Jews are one of the most secular ((ethnic)) groups. The weird Talmud obsession that’s going around has to be originating from Quran thumping shitskins. You guys literally know more about the holy israeli texts than the israelites it’s hilarious.

You don't understand what the talmud is or its meaning to the israelites (which also varies drastically depending on sect).

you really have brain rot

>Talmud is just a collection of israelites refining the art of pilpul for hundreds of years
jesus christ

>good and moral
on what standard? I guess being able to rape and kill your slaves legally is moral?

I was being facetious when I wrote that. Sorry bro, I have no answers for you.

uh oh he might call you a big fricko head or something now. please ignore all those trad pagan religions which practiced human sacrifice and glorified it btw ahah

what if your enemy taught you what was good? you would destroy yourself and love every moment.

>calling it subjective is equivalent to calling it nonsense.
Yes, morality is quite literally some nonsense humans made up to organize a society and get along with each other.
>a moral argument just becomes the same as people arguing wether that dress was blue or white basically. you may as well not even bother
You don't have to bother if you don't want to. You can choose to be amoral. Plenty of (colored) people do this.

you’re not reading my posts properly. you can say “this is my moral opinion” and you’re still assuming everything I said in that post. the idea is that any moral claim assumes all of these things and relies on them unconsciously. you utilise metaphysical moral logic when you make a moral statement like more or less good. crazy that plato said since over two thousand years ago and still nobody can actually refute it

No, I understand what you're saying. The problem is, it is delusional. What is morally good is your subjective opinion. That's it and that's all. It does not come from anywhere but your own mind. Hence why all these people who supposedly get their morality from God seethe and disagree with each other on a constant basis, often to the point of violence. If God was the source of morality, this wouldn't happen. It's very blatantly manmade. If you stop and think about it, you'll realize this. As for where I get my morality from, I at least can honestly state "It is my personal opinion" instead of coping and pretending it's not. It just so happens that my subjective opinion of morality aligns more with the religious.

>calling it subjective is equivalent to calling it nonsense.
Yes, morality is quite literally some nonsense humans made up to organize a society and get along with each other.
>a moral argument just becomes the same as people arguing wether that dress was blue or white basically. you may as well not even bother
You don't have to bother if you don't want to. You can choose to be amoral. Plenty of (colored) people do this.

[...]
No, I understand what you're saying. The problem is, it is delusional. What is morally good is your subjective opinion. That's it and that's all. It does not come from anywhere but your own mind. Hence why all these people who supposedly get their morality from God seethe and disagree with each other on a constant basis, often to the point of violence. If God was the source of morality, this wouldn't happen. It's very blatantly manmade. If you stop and think about it, you'll realize this. As for where I get my morality from, I at least can honestly state "It is my personal opinion" instead of coping and pretending it's not. It just so happens that my subjective opinion of morality aligns more with the religious.

Actually it comes to world around (you), my b

Satisfaction is objectively good

you’re not reading my posts properly. you can say “this is my moral opinion” and you’re still assuming everything I said in that post. the idea is that any moral claim assumes all of these things and relies on them unconsciously. you utilise metaphysical moral logic when you make a moral statement like more or less good. crazy that plato said since over two thousand years ago and still nobody can actually refute it