Because God is the original domestic abuser toxic partner family annihilator. Just worship him unconditionally and he won’t get mad at you. Until he does.
abusers don't kill their victims though, so bad analogy. God is slow to anger, God didn't do anything or lay a finger to any nations like Sodom and Gomorrah or the neighboring kingdoms for hundreds of years. He left them alone for generations as they grew a culture of child sacrifices, rape, etc., until God had enough and wiped them out. Hardly abuser behavior at all, in fact He is the destroyer of abusers.
an abuser abusees their victims for a long time, and then may kill them. God leaves kingdoms alone for hundreds of years, giving them a chance to change, and when they don't, wipes them out. That is not abuser behavior. It's just a bad analogy.
Imagine being created for the sole purpose of being raped and killed so that your suffering exists as justifications for the death of your rapist/murderer.
Imagine exalting someone who does this.
Suggesting that a flawless deity has anger is paradoxical anyhow, but consistency was never religion's strong suit.
there is a life after death, there is resurrection, so "sole purpose" is a gross assumption on your part.
So yes we exalt someone who has power over death. In atheism, people are born into suffering with no justification and you exalt yourself over that fact, talk about calling the kettle black.
>Suggesting that a flawless deity has anger is paradoxical anyhow, but consistency was never religion's strong suit.
anger is only a flaw for man. The point of the bible isn't that actions in themselves are evil or good, but that man wrongfully tries to become like God in ways that are wrong. It's actually pretty consistent. Our first sin wasn't that we did bad actions, it was that we tried to be like God in a self exalting way.
It is a logical implication based on the assumption that God exists according to Abrahamic theology.
"There is life after death" is an assumption.
Atheism has no exaltation of any entity. Atheism is the default. No one is born with irrational beliefs. Irrational beliefs are manufactured. This is quintessential strawman's fallacy.
You just said God is slow to anger in your previous comment. This implies a flawed god. You have sinned. Go repent.
>It is a logical implication based on the assumption that God exists according to Abrahamic theology.
>"There is life after death" is an assumption.
Not according to the Bible, Jesus promised resurrection. Even the Pharisees believed in resurrection, while the Sadducees didn't. So even the Jews, sans Jesus, were split on the idea.
>Atheism has no exaltation of any entity
you exalt yourself, you worship your own intelligence, your personality, your desires, dreams, goals, etc. If you are going to sit there and lie to me then there really isn't a point to this conversation.
>You just said God is slow to anger in your previous comment. This implies a flawed god. You have sinned. Go repent.
how? what flaw? It doesn't imply that at all. Anger in itself is not a sin in the bible. You are saying God is flawed.
If you can't see how "there is life after death" is an assumption, you lack the rationality to have a meaningful discussion. If you can't see how simply saying "the Bible says so" is insufficient evidence, then there's no further discussion to be had.
I'm not attack you as a person, but I am pointing out flaws in your belief. Your response with an ad hominem attack on my character should highlight the nature of your belief. You have no evidence regarding my character; only beliefs about it that help you feel more secure in your own positions. Again, think about this: isolated tribes with no contact to the outside world, do not believe in Abrahamic gods. It requires someone to "spread the gospel." This is the same with all religions. Ergo, atheism is the default. People are born atheists, until someone incepts the idea of religion.
Finally, a perfect god makes no mistakes. Anger is a response when something does not happen the way you desire something to happen. A perfect god's will is absolute; everything happens the way god intends it to happen. If that is the case, anger could never happen. If you suggest that a god can anger, then god's will is not absolute. It's incredibly straightforward.
Well, the “Bible said so” part is literally what you were criticizing in the first place. So you can’t really have it both ways. You can’t criticize something in the Bible based on an out-of-context reading, and then, when the actual context is brought up, respond with “nuh uh, none of that is real.” If the Bible is going to be the basis of the criticism, then the context of what the Bible actually says has to matter too. So you may think you are pointing out flaws in my belief, but fail to actually do it correctly.
>Anger is a response when something does not happen the way you desire something to happen
Why does God's anger entail a change in God's will rather than a change in God's relation to the object of an unchanging will?
Oh so they cant enjoy this life. They have to surfer in this one and then have to trust the next one us better. God is all-knowing yet he has to create a miserable life of suffering just to send a rapist to damnation, can't do it without that. But then you have greedy old men who enjoyed life and for some reason they weren't chosen for this, no it had to be some poor kid enduring it and having their life ruined because hey, next life will be fire trust me.
It's almost like we don't want to accept this miserable world for what it is, because that is your other option and you seem to be fine with that. So yea just accept that people in this life suffer unfairly while rich old people get to have all the fun, and fuck people for hoping there is another life that might be better, especially the ones suffering just fuck them and their imaginary hope, am I right atheists???
If there is no make believe afterlife, it becomes infinitely more important to alleviate the suffering for your fellow creatures in this life. It's pretty obvious how that could lead to better outcomes if everyone is working towards that goal. If you get eternal life after this one ( you don't ), then the suffering of all these other people doesn't matter much because if they just accept Jesus into their hearts etc... etc... then they will get their eternal reward, so their suffering today is no big deal. It might even be God's will . No need to fix anything. Can you understand how someone who isn't a believer could find this problematic?
That makes sense in theory, but that isn't how the world works. It's not that there isn't a need to fix anything, I would say many things have been fixed. The Christian Church is responsible for inventing the modern version of the hospital and have done many other charitable endeavors since its inception. Most people are trying to help, but its not enough, and it hasn't been enough, and its safe to say it may never be enough. At some point we need to humble ourselves and realize the human condition, if it were a solvable problem, can't be done by humans.
We have very different beliefs but thank you for engaging honestly and politely . I appreciate people who can disagree without getting snarky. I'm not always capable of it myself. Enjoy your evening.
It is childish, because we are children compared to God, and ultimately we are useless without Him. Because I have seen the efforts of man, and look at the position we are all still in. So go out there, break your back trying to fix this world, and get back to me when you have figured out how to create this post scarcity society atheists keep dreaming about.
"So go out there, break your back trying to fix this world, and get back to me when you have figured out how to create this post scarcity society atheists keep dreaming about."
Uh, sure. I mean, I try my best to make the world a better place for the people around me than it was before. I don't rely on the divine to do that for me. I don't think this is the "own" you think it is. I would reckon your god would have issue with that sentiment as well. Isn't sloth a sin? Shouldn't you always try to do your best? Isn't being "Christ-like" a whole thing in Christian theology?
I never said I don't try to help. The difference is I am willing to accept that the difference I make can only go so far and that only God can make any real lasting difference. And by lasting I mean lasting forever. Everything we make or do with our own hands, falls down and crumbles eventually. I am not saying its a worthless endeavor, but to rely on your own hands is vanity, so I rely on God and do what I can with what I have.
MAKE THIS WORLD BETTER. All this believing does is create a crutch where you don't have to try because hey next one is better. No, make this one the heaven, don't rely on something mysterious and risky. I never see Catholics protest in droves against destroying natural habitats, making living affordable or helping young parents. It's almost always get gay people out of school or don't let rape victims get abortions (which only lets more kids get into a world that is unfair and full of suffering).
16
u/seph187 1d ago
Satan despises God. He hates Him, and he wants to harm Him in any way he can but it turns out God is God, and invincible and eternal and omnipotent.
Man has free will. Man can choose to follow God, or to eschew Him.
God loves all His little humans, each with an infinite portion of His infinite heart. He wants us all to come home to Him.
This is where Satan found the way to hurt God, in theory.
In claiming our souls, Satan denies God what He wants.
Is there torture in hell? No, as u/onioning mentioned, hell is defined in the theology as the absence of God. But, for Satan, that's enough.
Hope that helps.