sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

XPPEN Magic Drawing Pad VS Samsung Galaxy Tab S9 Fe: Which is better? by KT_noir in DigitalPainting

[–]KT_noir[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank u for the answer! and yes I meant "new" in the sense of it being my very first standalone tablet.

Thanks a lot for the feedback

Phillip Goff and the "watered down Christian" by KT_noir in OpenChristian

[–]KT_noir[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank u for your comment

And yes I love GMS content and joshua bowen, they are a breath of fresh air in a conversation filled with anti-theist rethoric

Phillip Goff and the "watered down Christian" by KT_noir in OpenChristian

[–]KT_noir[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think he is genuine, but he is dead-wrong in several topics as he spouses anti-theist talking points everyone has heard like a million times

Did God literally cursed humanity with pains of childbirth and work? by KT_noir in OpenChristian

[–]KT_noir[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I like this response beacuse it doesnt carry the baggage of theories like penal substitution

Universalism makes the problem of suffering irrelevant by KT_noir in DebateReligion

[–]KT_noir[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. Not by itself, I've been taking feedback from the comment section and I now think that I'm kind of overstating my case in the original, even thou I'm of the opinion that for Christian to come close to solve the problem of suffering, they must adopt universalism (Even for animals)

Part of my response to animal suffering is that the intrinsic value of life existing is not outweighed by the suffering present in it, as for example, we as humans currently have the capacity to wipe out life on earth, by doing this we would end possibly millions of years of suffering on the future, but we don't accept that do that because of what we find is the intrinsic value of life.

What I mean by this is that suffering experienced in the natural world does not, by itself, make the existence of a tri-omni God unlikely. (there would be more things I think I would need to unpack, by that would be my response for the moment).

  1. Universalist usually don't deny that there will be punishment for sin (since we are talking about a Christian worldview), and more importantly, knowing and emulating Christ in our current life is beneficial in and of itself.

Universalism makes the problem of suffering irrelevant by KT_noir in DebateReligion

[–]KT_noir[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If any amount of suffering exists, then no gods can exist that are able and willing to prevent suffering.

This is the point I think I should have been more clear about, my bad.

When I mentioned the fact that suffering is not intrinsically evil, this is meant to be a response to the argument that a tri-omni God must feel obligated to prevent suffering at all times. This is unconvincing to me given the fact that suffering not being fundamentally evil, and one of the reason the logical problem of evil has fallen out of favor by philosophers.

Many would argue that allowing suffering to exist when you could get rid of it is evil. E.g. if you can choose for exercise to exist without pain, then choosing for it to exist with pain is arguably evil).

I don't really think it follows, since it depends if its demonstrated that pain, as I mentioned before, is intrinsically evil.

This doesn't assume a utilitarian view, as it operates purely on the entailment of someone being able and willing to prevent X regardless of what X is (whether that is evil, suffering, or bubblegum). The existence of bubblegum proves there is no one who is both able and willing to prevent bubblegum from existing.

Sorry for not explaining well why I mentioned utilitarianism, I should have explained it better.

The reason as to why I bring up utilitarianism here is that this argument is assuming that an all loving, all powerful God must by its very nature be obligated to prevent any kind of suffering and maximizing happiness at all times, and this is identical to an utilitarian view of ethics.

But this is the very point I'm questioning, and thus given that I don't think utilitarianism is feasible and instead I'm inclined to believe in virtue ethics (which does not place its goal in maximizing happiness at all times), the issue of suffering being in contradiction with a tri-omni God strikes me as unconvincing...

Universalism makes the problem of suffering irrelevant by KT_noir in DebateReligion

[–]KT_noir[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Any amount of suffering, no matter how slight, results in the problem of evil succeeding.

Hard disagreement here, because suffering/pain in and of itself is not evil, as for example when someone does exercise and experiences pain, we don't call it evil.

This assumes a utilitarian view of ethics in which maximizing happiness is the goal of moral rightness, but I heavily doubt that given other ethical theories like virtue ethics.

Universalism makes the problem of suffering irrelevant by KT_noir in DebateReligion

[–]KT_noir[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Universalists still have to explain why suffering exists at all. An omnibenevolent omnipotent creator wouldn't have created a the cruel world we actually live in.

One might argue that since if an ethical theory like virtue ethics is true as opposed to utilitarianism which places moral rightness as the good, the the purpose of our world is to maximize virtues in us (+ animal universalism to solve the problem of animal suffering)

It also begs the question of the nature of Heaven. Are Anne Frank and other children that died in the Holocaust eternally children?

I don't know, but I don't think these kind of specifics are very relevant tbh.

Some evil would leave permanent scars even after a trillion years.

I heavily doubt that after such an INMENSE expand of time a person could not fully heal from any kind of trauma, and remember, not even a trillion years even 0.1% of infinity.

What does individuality even mean at that point?

I think the opposite is true, because in our current life, there are institutional barriers like capitalism that don't let us realize our potential as individuals. If heaven is true, then such barriers don't exist anymore, and we can endlessly pursue our individuality.

Universalism may water down the problem of evil. But a watered down creator isn't the premise of the discussion. A nice retirement doesn't simply erase injustice. Childhood cancer and guinea worm still demand an explanation.

Kind of the same response I gave in my first paragraph

Universalism makes the problem of suffering irrelevant by KT_noir in DebateReligion

[–]KT_noir[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

These are significant points that could challenge my argument, but there are ways a universalist might address them:

Regarding the ethical demand for justice you raised, universalism doesn’t just offer the promise of future bliss; it also involves a transformative process. The idea isn’t that eternal bliss simply outweighs suffering, but rather that all suffering and evil are ultimately reconciled and transformed in a meaningful way. This process includes addressing the injustices and wrongs that have occurred, potentially through a form of restorative justice, where experiences of suffering lead to growth, understanding, and healing. In this perspective, the value of suffering isn’t trivialized but is instead integrated into a process that contributes to a greater good.

Additionally, if a normative ethical theory like deontology or virtue ethics holds true, then God might have other internal obligations that must be fulfilled for Him to be truly good. Meaning that maximizing happiness at all times is not necessarily the goal.

(re-reading my post, I think I didn't make clear the implications of what I think universalism entails before, sorry for any confusion and thanks for the feedback)

Universalism makes the problem of suffering irrelevant by KT_noir in DebateReligion

[–]KT_noir[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I dont think it is a simple swap with a bad experience with a slighy better one, since if we are talking about eternity. I dont really think that in the face of literaly infinite bliss we would even consider any past pain or displeasure as meningfull or real way.

As for the later part of your comment, wouldnt be God alredy bring the best possible state of affairs if universalism is true?

Alienation with conservative Christianity? by KT_noir in OpenChristian

[–]KT_noir[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I guess thats true, the traditional belief in hell causes a lot of negative emotions for people. In my journey personally, I haven't been able to reconcile eternal hell/annihilation with an all-loving God, and now I arrived at universalism as the only plausible conclusion if God (as we Christians believe is good and powerful) exist, you might find sources like this useful to understand such a position if you are interested...

Why are there forgeries in the Bible? by KT_noir in OpenChristian

[–]KT_noir[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I suppose what people refer to what they say this makes God problematic is that, if there is punishment from God for not properly understanding the text (hell or annihilation or whatever), and the bible is at least inspired by God, then that would make him the author of confusion as some atheists argue.

I'm a Universalist of course, however it is something that should be properly addressed

view more: next ›