have a good week

@Bogatyr Bogumir you got it

I'll try clarifying why you're right when I get home

Kill all Muslims

edgy and stupid

😎 this is what all the Kool Kidz are into these days

the idea is that the determinant nature is not destined by God's action, but ascertained by his knowledge yielding what will happen

so the sum of anything that happens will be free insofar that you will choose the determined choice 100% of the time

because that determined trajectory of history, time, or whatever is the sum of those choices

Without the role of God involved it devolves from a determinist outlook to a silly truism - What is chosen will be the result 100% of the time

Why not even try?

You do not know the outcome

Why not try?

If you try, salvation

If you don't, damnation

Or if you are right, we just die

I see no foul in trying

Trying is not enough

Obviously

Fanaticism is absolutely necessary

I'm just trying to simplify it

Anything less is not enough

You were just playing the Calvinism angle, that's all

The truth is that we cannot understand God's plan/goal for us as humans

We cannot comprehend what he plans for us

Just as an ant cannot comprehend the imagination of a human

Calvinism and pre-selection is actially retarded

@Doctor Anon what is your issue with my theory

Who is to say that God has any plans for us at all?

Maybe he only intervenes when we are about to kill ourselves or are about to hit rock bottom?

who is to say that it's all in our heads? maybe the sheer irrepressible power of the human mind and soul combined are just having a large-scale placebo effect and we just think "religion" is based from the people who think alike?
or even since it's all the human mind, all humans are interconnected in this so-called "religion"

@j.toffee

@j.toffee
Your argument has no foundation. Build upon it and it has potential...
To be knocked down by logic and that “religion” you think is just from our minds.
Blasphemy is the only word which comes to mind.

Ill read up on death today and try to bring some information from the observable World about God. I have some 50 source booked when i had my metal break exactly one year ago.

There is an issue with psychology and many atheist BIG thinkers stating that we can ot co prehend not existing and death. However i beg to differ and this Led me to study which resukted in me beliwving in God the after life and all that. Ironically empiricism Led me to this.

@Doctor Anon i think i will write a paper on this determinism thing

I just wondered what would happen if everyone was convinced that there is no god

It would probably lead to extreme transhumanism

That'd be lit

a lack of religion or spirituality means a lack of objective morality and will always lead to degeneracy

I could care less about religion

Deism for the win.

@Obungus yeah for example look at this shit

abdullah sameer is the exmuslim

murtad retard

Holy fuck

Unholy fuck*

Dumbass

I’m an atheist but I still respect those with religious beliefs

shutup atheist

It’s the atheists who are obnoxious about the fact they are atheist who I dislike

Atheist can still be of good morality

In my opinion it has to do a lot with upbringing

A child not brought up correctly will be more likely to go into degeneracy

You can't claim that someone is good, bad, or that morality is even existent if you are an atheist.

And why does my identity as an atheist immediately make that the case

You can't live a moral life if there is no objective standard to compare it to

Your basically playing the same identity politics game the left does

You are of course able to have an opinion

but it's not incredibly valid seeing as there's no way for it to have an objective basis

You can still have an objective goal as an atheist. Mine being to live a good life and be a good person

a goal sure

just not an objective moral standard

and in this case a "good" life and being a "good" person are just based off of how you interpret good

I understand what you mean when you say there is no standard to compare to

In my case the standard is just stay in school, don’t do drugs, and get a job

That's a rather common set of goals

but it's hard to stick to unless you have a very string will

You can be a moral atheist

But an atheist cannot use atheistic reasoning for morality

^

a world with no religion, so basically mass degeneracy and trannyism, potentially a lack of societal and technological progress and falling into a downward spiral where the lifespan stops at 20 because people are nihilists and see who can cut themselves the deepest the fastst to be edgy

That ain't true nihilism, Nihilism seeks to replace religion with culture and the arts as a framework of morality.

I'm a religious man myself, I'm not an edgy atheist teen but Nihilism can make sense if you dont believe in a God as a moral compass.

Even Nietzsche saw the value of religious order despite his distaste of it.

I won’t lie when I say a lot of religion definitely promotes good values and gives people a sense of hope and community

I just have a distaste’s for cults that attempt to control every aspect of people’s lives

Ones like Jehovah’s witnesses

free will does not exist

@el pebble how do you know that?

@Bogatyr Bogumir There might is a god, but so far, no religion is convincing enough for me to believe in some specific god.

I used to be an Orthodox Christian.

And there are also many moral atheists.

This is a very retarded stereotype. If you're an athesi you will either be gay or degenerate.

Not true.

The problem with atheism is the lack of morals. Atheistic thinking doesn't allow for absolute rights and wrongs. Thus atheism often leads to faggotry and degeneracy. Although all atheist aren't faggots or degenerates, mainly because of religious cultural influence, virtually all faggots and degenerates are atheists.

From a purely atheistic perspective, there is no way of reasoning why killing and eating your mother is wrong, because you will get nutrients and whatnot. Morality is inherently religious, even if you don't consciously believe in God.

Two can not walk together unless they have first agreed to meet.

@Obungus Atheists can live a moral life

no

if morals don't really exist then you can not possibly live by them

It's pretty easy to think off 2 lists with actions that are moral and not

Based on those lists we can assign morals

but if good and evil don't exist then it's all subjective

so you can live by your own standards

but it can't be defined as morality

Education gives most people, at least atheists an idea of what's good and bad

So based off that you could say that atheists can still believe in good and evil but reject the idea of god

but again, without something to make anything evil or good it isn't really morality. Just a subjective concept.

@Obungus but my point is that atheists actually do have something to make anything evil or good

but it isn't objective so it doesn't really matter all that much

So what's objective according to you

If this isn't objective "God's" morals would also be subjective

And again based on reason and science atheists can have morals

You can have a standard that doesn't change

but unless that thing undoubtedly defines good and evil it can not possibly be seen as an objective moral standard

God is an objective moral standard because He is unchanging and the definition of goodness

And where do God's morals come from

His natural attributes

Because he commands it?

no because He is it

His nature is what is good and seeing as God is immutable this means His morality is objective

And you have to listen to It

You don't *have* to

He gives you the option to ignore Him

So what happens if you ignore him

You get punished

Indeed

So you have to follow or else you'll get punished

That makes his moral's arbitrary

Because they're arbitrary it would mean God's morals are subjective

That isn't true at all

How so?

Just because there is a punishment for evil does not mean that good and evil don;t exist

I'm not saying good and evil do not exist

I'm saying that based off your logic god's morals would be subjective

And I am saying you are wrong because your argument doesn't make sense

How does it not make sense?

Morality is not a decision made by God it is based on how His nature

so it can not be arbitrary because it is His natural attributes that morality is based on

According to what religion

Christianity

So you mean that you get your morals from the Bible

We get our morals from God and that morality is communicated through the bible

the morality exists with or without the bible

But in general you get them from the Bible

no

We get them from God

who communicated them through the bible

You read it in the Bible and assume it is true so you get them from the Bible

I don't assume it is

I have a lot of reasons to believe it is

The Bible is subjective because the morals communicated through the Bible change constantly and contradict in the Bible

For example the "thou shalt not kill"

That isn't true

That refers to unjust killing

Where in the Bible itself it is okay to kill non believers or disobedient children

God never said it was wrong to take a guilty life

Heretics improperly practicing Christianity does not mean God contradicts Himself

According to the Bible disobedient children are guilty

And so they were

So they get killed

And it is okay according to the Bible

Only if they laid hands on their parents iirc

Whatever they did it is still a contradiction to the thou shalt not kill moral

but it isn't

God has never condemned the killing of an innocent person

Thou shalt not kill is referring to murder

Genesis 9:6 King James Version (KJV)

6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

**Genesis 9:6 - King James Version (KJV)**

```Dust


<6> Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. ```

The punishment for shedding the blood of a man is to shed their own blood

death penalty for murderers

an eye for an eye

God has never implied that people who are guilty should not be executed

@Obungus how about the case of rape then

what about it?

Are you talking about where the rape victim can be punished for not screaming?

No

About how it is okay to rape people if they're virgin's and are prisoners of war

And forcing them to marry you

Could you give me the verse?

Deuteronomy 21:10-25:19 Good News Translation (GNT)

Concerning Women Prisoners of War

10 “When the Lord your God gives you victory in battle and you take prisoners, 11 you may see among them a beautiful woman that you like and want to marry. 12 Take her to your home, where she will shave her head,[a] cut her fingernails, 13 and change her clothes. She is to stay in your home and mourn for her parents for a month; after that, you may marry her.

**Deuteronomy 21:10-23 - New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)**

```Dust
Female Captives / The Right of the Firstborn / Rebellious Children / Miscellaneous Laws

<10> When you go out to war against your enemies, and the Lord your God hands them over to you and you take them captive, <11> suppose you see among the captives a beautiful woman whom you desire and want to marry, <12> and so you bring her home to your house: she shall shave her head, pare her nails, <13> discard her captive's garb, and shall remain in your house a full month, mourning for her father and mother; after that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife. <14> But if you are not satisfied with her, you shall let her go free and not sell her for money. You must not treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her. <15> If a man has two wives, one of them loved and the other disliked, and if both the loved and the disliked have borne him sons, the firstborn being the son of the one who is disliked, <16> then on the day when he wills his possessions to his sons, he is not permitted to treat the son of the loved as the firstborn in preference to the son of the disliked, who is the firstborn. <17> He must acknowledge as```

```Dust
firstborn the son of the one who is disliked, giving him a double portion of all that he has; since he is the first issue of his virility, the right of the firstborn is his. <18> If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, <19> then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his town at the gate of that place. <20> They shall say to the elders of his town, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard." <21> Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death. So you shall purge the evil from your midst; and all Israel will hear, and be afraid. <22> When someone is convicted of a crime punishable by death and is executed, and you hang him on a tree, <23> his corpse must not remain all night upon the tree; you shall bury him that same day, for anyone hung on a tree is under God's curse. You must not defile the land that the Lord your God is giving you for possession. ```

If we look at the context

this is actually a punishment for the man

as it is about making a man marry a woman who he "went into"

https://www.gotquestions.org/Deuteronomy-22-28-29-marry-rapist.html

@Obungus Are you a catholic or an orthodox christian?

Or a protestant?

I am a protard

Awww.

I as ready to fuck over a Catholic.

no Catholics here

except for the commie

figures

Damn.

Catholic Christians are retarded.

kinda rude

Truth hurts.

I'd definitely agree they are mislead

but they are generally noble in their motives

eh

A mislead Christian is a bad christian.

Everyone is mislead to some degree

No one can be perfect

Except for Jesus

😎

@Obungus the link is about something else

oh shit u right

The Catholics believe that the Pope is *never* mislead.

Retarded.

the verse you sent does not necessarily condone rape though

because of the wording it may seem that way but it is only because the two would be married that they would be able to have sex

and the law would still apply in this marriage

meaning that even if the specific passage does not condemn it that the laws that do would still apply

and if he had raped her he would not have the choice to not marry her

Uhm he does

It is stated that the man can go out of the marriage if he wants

Yes, but wouldn't he have to marry her first?

That's only if he hasn't raped her or had sex

To go out of the marriage?

because the law would still apply

and sex before marriage and rape are both punishable

Sex before marriage should be allowed.

So him letting her go would only be if they did not have sex

and the dishonor would come from her shaving her head and such

@Obungus pretty sure the dishonor comes from forcing her to have intercourse with you

which translation is this?

GNT

What's that supposed to mean

it means

<:facepalm:487682504153628701>

It means

<:facepalm:487682504153628701>

nope

If it's about the GNT translation, it is one of the most accurate translations

It is used by every mayor Christian denomination in the US

So I'm pretty sure that there's nothing wrong with the translation

What about ESV I know it is very common among members of my church.

@Victor Von Doom
It also states that the man can rape the woman

You may go in to her reffers to intercourse

The only difference is that in the GNT it's called intercourse

GNT is my personal favorite

1 Corinthians 9:7

**1 Corinthians 9:7 - New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)**

```Dust


<7> Who at any time pays the expenses for doing military service? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat any of its fruit? Or who tends a flock and does not get any of its milk? ```

✅ **Check <https://rythmbot.co/features#list> for a list of commands**

@Doctor Anon same

Daily reminder that The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is the true church of God

All others do not teach the entire truth

Excluding prots since they aren’t Christian

@Lucien Prots are lost chritistians, not not christian

The catholic church is a counterfeit church