God not you

like natural phenemmenon

Love does not allow evil.

Love is doing what is best for someone

Actually it does

Well no

It's wanting the best for someone

it would be a non factor

Love encompasses a great many things

Letting someone chose evil is not best in terms of love.

But most of all, it is an unconditional affection towards another, irresepctive of their qualities

God loves us, not because we are good

We are born into sin

Chopin define what is evil?

He can't define evil

Evil is the rejection of god

Why would that be

Good and Evil cannot exist without God.

The absence of his prescene

God is good, wholly good

Then wouldn't god not everywhere

and would it be that god doesn't love he controlls

God is everywhere, but his essence isn't in everything. Christianity doesn't ascribe to a panentheistic view of reality

Like how a mad man likes to see a woman's mind breaking into stockholm

What is more loving? Pure love, or love and evil together? Choice allows evil. Choice is evil not loving.

What do you mean by those terms

Free will lets man chose evil. Without free will there would be no evil. That is more loving.

I think this is quite a complex topic, that many tomes have been written poring over this subject

Without free will there can be no good either

by both philoophers and theologians

https://discord.gg/3B5Qe

Good? I thought we were talking about love.

God is a god of love and goodness

So as a direct result of these qualities of himself, every action thereof is never in contradiction to his attributes

Why is free will good for a loving God to give when it can only lead to evil?

he cannot act in a way that contradicts his own nature

Are you sure it will only lead to evil

How can you be so sure about something like that

That is the way it turned out.

Either you are good like God or you choose to move away.

This has been an interesting convo mate, but I apologise I have to go

Good night

Okay thanks.

I'm taking the gf to see wonder woman

should be good

Goodnight

@Mros Why can there be no good without freewill?

Because by doing good you must be consciously rejecting evil. Without the ability to do evil you cannot be good. You would merely be acting.

Do you really have the ability to do evil if you never commit evil sometimes?

Can God create evil?

If not he is not all powerful.

It is outside of his nature to do it. He would not do evil because he is all good.

Is God also conscious of evil?

Yes, and in he works around man's evil in order to do good.

So God would never directly command man to do evil

Are you going to bring up Abraham and Isaac?

I was going to bring up Job

Ah, Job.

Killing his family members in order to prove his loyalty to him

It was actually Satan who did that

How would a loving God subject his child to such suffering

If God is all-powerful, and also loving, how can he allow evil to exist

Why not crush it instantly

You've asked this question numerous times and it's been answered numerous times.

There's no need to go around in circles with it.

I've asked it twice and you've avoided the first time

I misunderstood this idea of free will. Thanks for clarifying.

hi chopin

If God crushed evil he would be absolving man of the responsibility for his own actions. Which would be unjust.

Hi

Free will defined as holding consciousness and potentiality of evil but not acting on it, is interesting.

Hmm, this argument isn't convincing in the slightest

@Mros is this idea also Catholic doctrine?

*"It was actually Satan who did that"* So it wasn't entirely man's responsibility

Not sure, I'm still new to it

@Deleted User If I understand it correctly, in theory, man has free will to reject evil created by satan. I am assuming they also need God's help of goodness to do it because of original sin.

Nothing stopping you from reading into theology.

Aquinas is good

I am still no closer to the existence of God. The cosmological argument is not very good.

Ok that's fine.

But why not even look to see if there's anything there?

Unless you've already read theology in which case, disregard what I said.

I acknowledge the internal consistency now though.

Well, i just had trouble make the rational leap into faith. Seems reckless.

That's a very reasonable belief

Soren Kierkegaard wrote about the relationship between faith and reason in Fear and Trembling.

I can't say too much about it, because I haven't read it yet. But It's coming this saturday.

I think I can look into Thomas and Soren again. It has been several years. I am very busy with materials unfortuately.

Don't worry about it. It's worth looking into if you get the chance.

Christianity has lasted this long, there's gotta be something to it, huh?

No.

What I'm trying to say is that it's worth looking into.

Longevity is not always proof of validity

Not saying that it's proof of truth, but it shouldn't be overlooked or dismissed without at least a little study.

Oh I see, yes, it is relevant to learn about.

Thanks for the chat.

No problem. Any time.

I hope existentialism does not hurt you too much.

One last thing then I'll let you on your way

Ok

I take your argument that “God crushed evil he would be absolving man of the responsibility for his own actions”

Why would God not crush evil before it reached that point? Before mankind was led astray and disobeyed God?

God created man with free will. The ability to respect God's judgement or reject it and fend for himself. This choice was represented by the tree of knowledge of good and evil. To allow man this choice is allowing him the choice between good and evil. It is impossible to love or respect God without the ability to act against him. Crushing the ability to do evil, and thus man's ability to choose, would also be crushing man's ability to act in a way that is in line with God's will, because such a thing would require the concsious decision to do so.

I apologize in advance if It was poorly worded, it's passed 1 am.

Not at all. You frame your points well though, I respect that

And as promised that's the last question I have

Goodnight, thanks for the chat

Same to you. Have a good one.

@Mros so I assume you believe communism is compatible with Christianity? what denom are you?

@Deleted User I suppose it's possible in theory, but I have yet to see one that hasn't accepted heresies or stop being a communist later.

I'm going to become a catholic

Christianity as a matter of principle as well is, I think, opposed to ideaologies that proclaim state atheism

And advocate mass killings

Agreeed

@Mros The Catholic Church actually denounced communism around the 80s iirc

I'm not surprised

There's the answer then

Having said that, I don't think the current pope is too concerned with the socialist public policies

You don't think communism is incompatible with say, the parable of the 3 servants?

In fact, I think he has a heart for the poor and disadvantaged

similiar to concerns for access to healthcare and other state services under democratic socialism models

The only way I could see it being possible is if the communist reject parts of their ideology to coincide with Christian teachings

And even then I'm doubtful

Actually, the parable is incompatible with the fundamentals of communism is what I am saying

not rejecting aspects but outright complete rejection

Ok, good thing I'm not a communist then

heh

so you're non-denom or simply not a ''believer'' yet?

Non denom

as in agnostic/athiest looking to convert?

okay can we fuck off with the religion shit for a couple of hours I just woke up to see you guys still going at it

I do not understand non-denoms I admit

I'm only one due to me being new to it

It feels like they're outright ignoring the Epistle

What's your denomination?

don't notice the symbol in my avatar?

Catholic then

well no, Orthodox, that should be the Byzantine Cross w/ Greek letters

ah

Yes, of course

w/ Cyrillic letters at the top but that's a non-religious thing

I thought that was familiar from history of byzantium podcast

cool man

Ok

Orthodox church, logically and from a secular pov is the one true faith with all other churches having split off, as in we're the original branch

being that Catholics, Apostolics, Oriental Orthodox etc all broke away at some point by rejecting an Eccumenial Council

That is a view point

That is cool and whatnot

maki>>>>nico

But in my books

No, it's the process used

wtf?

If you love Jesus and believe in the gospel

shut up kid

ur gay famicom

Back in what was it, the 2nd century? A heresy poppoed up that created the idea of having Eccumenial Councils

And ascribe to the Nicene creed

マウスピース20分

I mean Eccumenial Councils being a reaction

which nicene creed?

The one that was decided in Nicene aha

The original one? the one where it was changed once?

The one the Catholics use?

the Nicene creed was created then changed by an Eccumenial Council

The changes weren't really too major mate

But then again I come from a reformed background

Actually any change can cause a schism

Such as the Russian Orthodox and the Old Believers

Catholics and Orthodox

hmm yeah

What is your point

You argue that the orthodox church as you see it, is the one true church due to apostolic succession

The one w/ the Old Believers was very ''insignificant'' but ti still caused a schism

It's the original branch

You know I think the schism between east and west was more to do the internal politics within the fading roman empire

Than anything else

Internal politics caused unneeded change theologically, yes

Especially Papal Primacy

Yeah

But at the end of the day

If someone has accept the gospel mate

They love Jesus

What if you accept it wrong?

And have received the holy spirit

They are still christian man

many immoral people love Jesus

all denoms claim to love Jesus but have vast differences

ok, but as a part of loving Jesus, they follow and obey his commands

you're arguing for sola fide and sola scriptura

And have received the gospel of savlation

What are His commands <:Thonk:291442234199375872>

To love god and to love others

your background is definitely showing extremely much

That is what the entirety of the commands were accordin to christ

and, I don't wanna be petty but capitalize His pronouns and names

Ok, I apologise

I'm reformed man

''to love God and to love others''
this is extremely extremely vague

what does it mean to love?

What are acts of love?

Can an unpleasurable act be out of love?

I'm talking about the greatest commandment man

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Commandment

And that commandment has a meaning

Yes

thing is, many can interpret it many ways

which is why we have Eccumenial Councils

Obviously man, for brevity I am summarising heavily here

That's the thing I despise about sola scriptura

it degenerates and causes schisms in theology everywhere, ultimately making ethics completely relative

Sorry

But how

the denial of a single Truth

Which one

So you're protestant, right?

I'm Reformed

so yeah

I think that man is born into sin

Man is unable to save himself

Jesus incarnated into human history in accordance with God the Father's plan from before time

sola fide

Tell me, how do the Reformed declare an interperation of scripture infallible?

In the reformed camp, the exegetical methodology is to interepret scripture in accordance with what else is said in scripture

So where something is vague, look at in context with what is said before and after it, along with other passages in scripture

But yeah, we also heavily follow the writings of Augustine, and his work on the sovereignty and grace of god

Along with of course Calvin

but what about declaring infallibility?

well scripture is infallible

Scripture is the inspired and authorative word of god

Everyting else is the work of mere men

Some of those dudes have a lot of insight

but they don't stand higher than scripture

Do you have a problem with biblical inerrancy?

>an interperation

@Deleted User hmm

scripture is obv infallible

but it's interperation

what is

interperation of scripture

What is your point?

@Deleted User

The interperation of scripture, how do we make interperation infallible?

Well..

you can't

by definition

Like, there are points in the text where it is pretty obvious

Why not use an Eccumenial Council <:thinkHD:306271252254031873>

And you can't weave around it

Well yeah

We have the nicene creed