God is outside time meaning he sees every event laid out before him at once which in turn translates to him creating the child and the cancer simultaneously

>>18762633
And you worship this monster?

>>18762634
He's the boss ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>>18762636
He doesn’t exist. Have fun wasting your life

>>18762651
Fortunately gooning 24/7 is not my sole consolation so I will carry on following God's laws and living a fulfilling life.

>>18762659
Sorry, I can’t hear you with Jesus’ throbbing cock in your mouth

>>18762626
POE DEBOONKED
God wants to maximise the amount amount of people, because creating free agents is a better than creates robots/lobotomised humans under """Abrahamic theology""" (whatever that means) and god wants to maximise all possible goods.
Evils done against each other are the result of our free will, such as terror attacks, murder, rape.
naturals evils are the result of demons/sprits actions. their actions effect this world; earthquakes, floods, illness, etc are the result of evil actions. Nice weather, rain on dry land, etc are the result of good actions.
((Pretty cool theodicy sounds like an anime plot.))

God creates people in earth first and not heaven because he doesn't want to force people to chose him and he wants them to chose him not force them. God permits certain evils to exist so that second order virtues (i.e self-control) can exist and can be achieved, these certain evils must exist so god can maximises the greatest possible goods.

>>18762675
(im just throwing this one out there)
God created this world and not another world because he is too powerful
You can imagine a world where there is a set amount of good things, then you can do the same and +1, then you can do the same and +2 and so on. There will always be a better world to create, and god would maximise all possible goods but there is always going to be better world to create.
>so does god just not create
Well god can have other desires to motivate it to create other than value maxing, such as acting in accordance to moral perfection, a desire to behave morality is district to a desire to maximise the amount of goodness to exist.
For example, god promises to do something, call it x; fulfilling its promise would increases the amount of goodness which exists but that wouldn't matter, however god also has a desire to behave morally perfect, and its morally wrong to break a promise so a separate desire would motivate god it keep its promise.

So god can act without value maximization
God doesn't stop evil because it screened of value maximization but we can still attribute some aspects some actions to god because other other unspecified desires

>>18762663
>Sorry, I can’t hear you with Jesus’ throbbing cock in your mouth
CHRISTEN GET OWNED!!!!!!

>>18762659
Yeah, other consolations are good foo-Wait, that's banned. Then you can wear cool clo-No, can't do that either. You can trav-Wait, no, can't do that since you have to stay close to home during Saturdays. You can do cool artistic wor-Nope, can't do that either, it's banned by the 10 commandments. Then maybe you can do sci-Oh hell no! DO NOT QUESTION THE DOGMA!

>>18762699
>I don't understand the difference between Moral, Civil and Ceremonial law
yea dw we know.

>>18762705
The difference is that you completely made up those terms to keep only the parts of the Bible you like.

>>18762707
>I don't like it therefore its not real
yea dw we know thats how you think

>>18762626
we all die, why do you care if a child dies young?

>>18762714
Because its a triadic thing to die young

>>18762708
Funny how you didn't leap at the easy, risk-free opportunity to drop a Bible verse saying which commandments belong to which law to make this atheist look like a complete jackass.

>>18762714
Christianity, everyone

>>18762718
>can't answer
rational atheist striked again

>>18762634
many people adherer to certain beliefs not out of true conviction, but simply because it is how they were raised

>>18762717
Ceremonial Law are Rituals, dietary restrictions, and sacrificial systems pointing toward the coming of Christ. these were fulfilled through Jesus' death and resurrection and are no longer required.

Example: Dietary restrictions (Kosher laws): Strict prohibitions against eating specific animals, such as pigs, shellfish, or birds of prey (Leviticus 11)

Civil Law are ancient judicial and political rules meant specifically for the national commonwealth of ancient Israel relative to the time it was revelled. Because modern people do not live under that specific localized system, mainstream Christian theology holds that while the moral principles underlying these laws are timeless, the literal enforcement expired with the fall of ancient Israel.

Example: Building safety codes: The requirement to build a parapet (low wall) around the flat roof of a house so guests would not accidentally fall off (Deuteronomy 22:8).

Moral Law are permanent, universal commands that reflect God's unchanging character (such as the Ten Commandments). These remain active and binding for all people.

Example: The prohibition of murder: The absolute command protecting human life (Exodus 20:13).

>Proving someone wrong = making them look like an jackass
You have a very strange view of debate

>>18762626
I view God as something to be achieved and realized, rather than something you kinda speak to in hopes of getting toy cars.
>Wdym
It means there's as many ideas of god as there's people and you're wasting time here

>>18762735
>Ceremonial Law are Rituals, dietary restrictions, and sacrificial systems pointing toward the coming of Christ.
Retarded. Nothing about kosher food points to Jesus. You're 100% making this retarded bullshit the fuck up. Also, how isn't shekhitah moral?

Still no verse listing which laws belong to which "law." Meanwhile, my side of the debate can effortlessly provide verses that explicitly defend the central point: Matthew 5:18

>Moral Law are permanent, universal commands that reflect God's unchanging character (such as the Ten Commandments). These remain active and binding for all people.
Oh you mean like Shabbat? The thing you keep twisting yourself into a pretzel to not keep?

>>18762626
I love God blessed be his name!

>>18762746
>Retarded. Nothing about kosher food points to Jesus. You're 100% making this retarded bullshit the fuck up. Also, how isn't shekhitah moral?
yea Mark 7:19

>Still no verse listing which laws belong to which "law." Meanwhile, my side of the debate can effortlessly provide verses that explicitly defend the central point: Matthew 5:18
yea Matthew 5:17, Lamo check one verses behind it rather than relying on your llm to pick out verses

>Oh you mean like Shabbat? The thing you keep twisting yourself into a pretzel to not keep?
Yea the Shabbat is just traditionally viewed as a bridge between the Moral Law and the Ceremonial Law.
(However, because it contains elements of both, how a Christian views Shabbat depends heavily on their specific denomination (i.e Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and many Lutheran or Anglican theology's)) So while the principle of rest is moral, the specific mechanics of Shabbat belong under the Ceremonial Law.

An example could be the Sign of the Mosaic Covenant: Exodus 31:16–17 states that the Sabbath was given specifically as a "sign" between God and the children of Israel. Like circumcision, it served as a ritual identifier for a specific people.

Also language, swearing isn't good

>>18762634
How any orgasms a day do go indulge in, made possible by the generosity of God?
Eres un malagradecido y un charlatan.

>>18762760
>yea Mark 7:19
Nothing in there about kosher being about Jesus. Thanks for making it clear you made it up. Also, did you really think I wouldn't notice you're dodging the shekhitah question?

>yea Matthew 5:17
Imagine being so brain dead you read "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets" as "the law is abolished." Classic christard.

>Yea the Shabbat is just traditionally viewed as a bridge between the Moral Law and the Ceremonial Law.
>(However, because it contains elements of both, how a Christian views Shabbat depends heavily on their specific denomination (i.e Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and many Lutheran or Anglican theology's)) So while the principle of rest is moral, the specific mechanics of Shabbat belong under the Ceremonial Law.
That's a lot of words for "some Christians keep it because they like it, others leave it away because they don't like it."

Still no verse laying out the classification btw.

>>18762718
anything of substance to say?

>>18762971
>Nothing in there about kosher being about Jesus. Thanks for making it clear you made it up. Also, did you really think I wouldn't notice you're dodging the shekhitah question?
“Are you so dull?” he asked. “Don’t you see that nothing that enters a person from the outside can defile them? For it doesn’t go into their heart but into their stomach, and then out of the body.” (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)
I dogged literally nothing and if you have the patience to read through the whole thing before you typed away, you would see I already answered the shekhitah question later on.

>Imagine being so brain dead you read "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets" as "the law is abolished." Classic christard.
Lets quote the Whole thing shall we.
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them."
The word "fulfill" (Greek pleroo) means to complete, bring to full expression, or unpack the true heart and intent of God's laws.

so an example of this Fulfilment could be again in Leviticus 11:7-8 to Mark 7:19
God made the Mosaic covenant specifically with Israel, giving them ceremonial laws to set them apart as His nation as mentioned before. But then Jesus came to save all of humanity and establish the New Covenant for the whole world. Instead of the Mosaic covenant, believers live under the New (or Messianic) Covenant, that being a covenant of grace where Jesus made all foods clean.
this is just simple covenant theology desu anon, it would do you well to study it before being so rash to insults

>That's a lot of words for "some Christians keep it because they like it, others leave it away because they don't like it."
This is an non answer

>>18762626
Atheists actively kill children in the womb and then celebrate it publicly as a great thing.

>>18763274
>Still no verse laying out the classification btw.
Yea there isnt just one verse which lays out a classification the Bible naturally groups these laws differently based on how they are delivered and how the New Testament treats them can we can come to conclusions through stuff like, The Separation of the Ten Commandments (Moral), as already explained before. The Vocabulary in the Hebrew Text so an example cloud be Deuteronomy 6:1: "Now this is the commandment (mitsvah), and these are the statutes (chuqqim) and the judgments (mishpatim) which the Lord your God has commanded to teach you..." Mitsvah (Commandments) is often used for absolute moral edicts. Chuqqim (Statutes) often refers to boundaries, rituals, and religious decrees (Ceremonial) and Mishpatim (Judgments) literally translates to "case laws" or judicial verdicts (Civil) and How the New Testament Treats "Shadows" (Ceremonial) and how the New Testament Treats "Shadows" (Ceremonial).

Overall you are a very unpleasant person to talk to and you don't know anything about covenant theology.
Good day.

>>18762717
>sola scriptura tard
many such cases

>>18762675
>God creates people in earth first and not heaven because he doesn't want to force people to chose him and he wants them to chose him not force them
right so he's inefficient
>God permits certain evils to exist so that second order virtues (i.e self-control) can exist and can be achieved, these certain evils must exist so god can maximises the greatest possible goods.
there's nothing that requires suffering. God is supposedly omnipotent and so could imbue those second order virtues instantly to all creatures.

File: 128736 - soybooru.com - a(...).png (379 KB, 799x799)

379 KB PNG

>>18763328

Atheists won.

>>18763312
>right so he's inefficient
>Not forcing people = inefficient
ok

>there's nothing that requires suffering. God is supposedly omnipotent and so could imbue those second order virtues instantly to all creatures.
Yea omnipotent doesn't mean it can defy logic. By nessery second order virtues require certain evils to exist.

>>18763317
whatever makes you though the day ig

>>18763328
necessity*

>>18763328
>Not forcing people = inefficient
Yes it is. If you want an outcome and have the capacity to achieve it, but don't, then you are inefficient. Forcing others only matters if the outcome would be something that they would later consider bad or worthy of regret. If being with God is supposedly the best state you could be in, then nobody sane would object to being forced into it. Thus the distinction between being forced into it or not doesn't have any relevance.
>Yea omnipotent doesn't mean it can defy logic
It literally does. That's what OMNIpotent means.

>>18763338
>Yes it is. If you want an outcome and have the capacity to achieve it, but don't, then you are inefficient. Forcing others only matters if the outcome would be something that they would later consider bad or worthy of regret. If being with God is supposedly the best state you could be in, then nobody sane would object to being forced into it. Thus the distinction between being forced into it or not doesn't have any relevance.
God doesn't force you to be with it, god wants you to want to chose him instead because to chose god is a greater good than to be forced to him.
This is also why I hold to universalism

>It literally does. That's what OMNIpotent means.
Omi just means all, and potent means power. This tells me nothing about defying logic. A god which defies logic is incoherent
Its the whole Can god make a stone which no one can lift thing

>>18763351
>God doesn't force you to be with it, god wants you to want to chose him instead because to chose god is a greater good than to be forced to him.
Why? The outcome is the same. The outcome is what matters and the route taken to get there is irrelevant. This is an axiom I hold and if you don't agree with it then oh well, discussion is pointless.
>Omi just means all, and potent means power. This tells me nothing about defying logic.
It does, defying logic is an action, thus is included in the omni part of omnipotent.
>A god which defies logic is incoherent
Yes, that's why an omnipotent god is indeed incoherent.
>Its the whole Can god make a stone which no one can lift thing
yes, any omnipotent being is logically impossible to exist.

>>18763365
>Why? The outcome is the same. The outcome is what matters and the route taken to get there is irrelevant. This is an axiom I hold and if you don't agree with it then oh well, discussion is pointless.
Ok then its pointless


P1: God is all powerful
P2: All powerful means being unlimited
P3: logic is a limit
TF; God must transcend logic
The problem?
This is an argument that depends on logic.
The only reason you would think this argument is correct would be because god is concept which fits in logic.
:. If the conc is true then the argument doesn't work
Its called a self referential incoherence

>yes, any omnipotent being is logically impossible to exist.
If you are using omnipotent to mean transcends logic then I agree too