Current Events > If you believe in a benevolent God, how do you explain Donald Trump?

(+) Yeah! (+)

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


so you're agnostic then? guess we're both on the same boat. lol >_>

BlueBoy675 posted...

I thought it was 7 years split into two 3.5 year periods

It's both because the bible is nothing if not extremely inconsistent.

BlueBoy675 posted...

Interesting. I remember watching a vid a while back talking about how people who go to seminary typically become atheists because learning the actual history of the religion puts into perspective how contradictory and nonsensical it is. The fact the lore can just radically change over time is proof its all bs, to me at least

Another fun fact: Hell is never mentioned in the Old Testament. Nor is Heaven in the context of an afterlife. There's only Sheol, a land of the dead similar to Hades.

Demons aren't a thing until the New Testament either.

Euphoria rising.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

Sounds like Deism, the philosophy of many of our Founding Fathers.

There's also some pretty interesting cut content from the New Testament:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha

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

A priest actually told me about that growing up and I remember thinking "how do you know about this and still believe?", but of course I didn't say anything.

ssjevot posted...

There's also some pretty interesting cut content from the New Testament:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha

A priest actually told me about that growing up and I remember thinking "how do you know about this and still believe?", but of course I didn't say anything.

did you know the book of revelations might have been one of the these at one point. They debated even adding it in to the Bible because of how outlandish it sounded

Biofighter55 posted...

did you know the book of revelations might have been one of the these at one point. They debated even adding it in to the Bible because of how outlandish it sounded

Which books are or are not included also varies between current branches of Christianity. It's really wild some dudes just sat down and decided what was and wasn't canon after everyone who actually was alive during the time of Jesus was already dead.

ssjevot posted...

Which books are or are not included also varies between current branches of Christianity. It's really wild some dudes just sat down and decided what was and wasn't canon after everyone who actually was alive during the time of Jesus was already dead.

exactly what I thought lol I brought it once to a religious person I know and they point out to me that in the Bible it said everything in the Bible is true and bless by god

i forgot the exact wording but it was in the Bible, she showed me lol

and all I thought was that was smart to add to the Bible so no can question that these old men might have added things for themselves or what they believe in and not necessarily a divine message from god

pokedude900 posted...

Another fun fact: Hell is never mentioned in the Old Testament. Nor is Heaven in the context of an afterlife. There's only Sheol, a land of the dead similar to Hades.

Demons aren't a thing until the New Testament either.

Sheol is darkness. When you die its where you go. Over time depending on what branch of Christianity you follow you wait in a place like Sheol till Jesus returns or you go to be Judged.

Right now I'm athiest but not quite saying there isnt meaning to all this. That there isnt a Creator. I'm reading and watching alot about Gnosticism lately. Maybe some of that might explain TC thiughts. A supreme being thats hands off and a Demiurge that meddles when he feels like it.

Biofighter55 posted...

exactly what I thought lol I brought it once to a religious person I know and they point out to me that in the Bible it said everything in the Bible is true and bless by god

i forgot the exact wording but it was in the Bible, she showed me lol

and all I thought was that was smart to add to the Bible so no can question that these old men might have added things for themselves or what they believe in and not necessarily a divine message from god

I think this is a really strong point to Islam. Everything was written down while Muhammad was alive and there's not multiple accounts of the same event and so on. It's very concise.

*I'm not talking about the merits of the religion in terms of what it teaches or if it's true, just that the organization and veracity of its primary text is far superior.

I don't believe in god, benevolent or otherwise.

On the other hand, I have read the book of Job, so there's that precedent I guess?

ssjevot posted...

I think this is a really strong point to Islam. Everything was written down while Muhammad was alive and there's not multiple accounts of the same event and so on. It's very concise.

*I'm not talking about the merits of the religion in terms of what it teaches or if it's true, just that the organization and veracity of its primary text is far superior.

Just no.

Much like Christianity, once a great political power had hold of it, a great deal of editing ensued.

It's a common myth, I blame Gibbons personally, that Islam sits on firmer ground than other religions.

It doesn't really. Just like the others, only edited texts centuries after the fact exist, molded to fit the needs of ruling powers.

Not that the German theologians are allowed to look at ancient Korans these days, caused too much trouble (no, I don't know why it's always German theologians, apparently those lads are super keen on kicking away the flimsy scaffolding of belief, it's their thing ok?)

Letting proper scholars at your holy book is generally a bad idea, ask Christians, or indeed the Jews (I believe it was a Jew in Cordoba, who first proved that Moses could not possibly have written Genesis. Kicking in your own holy book, is of course, all in good fun.)

HighSeraph posted...

I fail to see how a human choosing to be evil disproves the existence of a benevolent god.

I prefer to go with the whole "not a speck of empirical evidence that any of it exists" part.

https://phys.org/news/2025-10-mathematical-proof-debunks-idea-universe.html

Scientists have proven with math that the universe is not a simulation. Simulations, Gods, heaven, etc., it's all the same thing.

Our universe is real and the only one. If there were more then this, what would be the point of the universe? You can just end it now and go back to the real reality. Why waste time here?

We humans have really vivid imaginations. We can come up with so many weird and abstract ideas to explain things. But the more we discover and learn about ourselves and the universe, the more you realize all of the spiritual and faith-based ideas are just ways to cope in this shitty place. Some of it probably has to do with evolution and how humans had to deal with death. Some of it is just wanting more than this.

One day, when we extend our lives with medicine and tech, while possibly nearing immortality, religion will die.

I find the "God is benevolent and loves all of us" viewpoint actually insulting given the state of the world, but maybe that's just me being weird about it.

Southernfatman posted...

I find the "God is benevolent and loves all of us" viewpoint actually insulting given the state of the world, but maybe that's just me being weird about it.

Maybe he's a scientist, observing the bacteria in his petri dish?

Or a child, pulling the wings off butterflies, if you're feeling pessimistic?

Alternatively, fairness, justice, equality etc, are entirely human constructs, and do not exist in nature.

They are artificial, and yet, we can achieve them, by our own means.

This doesn't make such concepts lesser, quite the reverse, they are ours. We created them, we aspire to them, and with effort, we can possess them.

Mussurana posted...

Maybe he's a scientist, observing the bacteria in his petri dish?

Or a child, pulling the wings off butterflies, if you're feeling pessimistic?

Both of those also serve to make the bible not true. So in any case their statements are correct, the existence of some non-biblical god not really changing their point.

ellis123 posted...

Both of those also serve to make the bible not true. So in any case their statements are correct, the existence of some non-biblical god not really changing their point.

I assumed some level of extremely basic philosophical debate, rather than adolescent gotcha.

Possibly my mistake?

"If God exists, why do people choose to be evil?"

Same reason Satan and his angels choose to rebel against God, the pride in their hearts.

Now if you're wondering why God set everything up to work the way it's working.... I have no clue. That's way beyond my knowledge and comprehension.

There's also an argument to be made that the current destruction of our country is merely a consequence of all the atrocities we've both permitted and tolerated as a country (We literally started with slavery and still have a form of it, for starters), but then there's the whole wars and genocides thing that... I also don't have a good answer for.

Don't get me wrong I'm sure as hell praying we don't get wiped out and want to do anything I can to stop the tyrant in charge. If America falls though, a lot of maga Christians (A bit like "Satanist Christian" in the sheer contradictory nature of it all) are going to have to come to terms that maybe "God's judgment" isn't just for faraway countries they hate.

That's all my perspective anyway.

ai123 posted...

Is it 'good' if you have no choice but to follow the rules? Would good and evil exist?

Or would we make finer and finer distinctions of what is good and evil? Would minor inconsiderate acts be viewed as great evils?

If God is all powerful and all knowing then he would know what good and evil are and how to make beings that are always good by his definition without violating free will.

If he can't do that, then he's either not all powerful, not all knowing, or not all good.

Or he doesn't exist, which is what I'm convinced of.

Mussurana posted...

I assumed some level of extremely basic philosophical debate, rather than adolescent gotcha.

Possibly my mistake?

Pointing out that your entire philosophy was wrong can apply to both. A debate does not require that everyone else involved has to agree with your core premise and, if anything, if a debate is to be real then if someone makes a fundamental mistake then even those that agree with you should be behooved in pointing out your fault.

So yeah, your mistake.

Something something original sin (despite benevolence).

Something something test (despite omniscience).

Something something free will (despite trolley problem and all the other problems with that line of thought).

Something something mysterious ways (so why should I assume he has my best interest at heart?).

ellis123 posted...

Pointing out that your entire philosophy was wrong can apply to both. A debate does not require that everyone else involved has to agree with your core premise and, if anything, if a debate is to be real then if someone makes a fundamental mistake then even those that agree with you should be behooved in pointing out your fault.

So yeah, your mistake.

Except of course, that my position was expressed in the portion of my post, that you carefully didn't quote.

Do better.

Mussurana posted...

Except of course, that my position was expressed in the portion of my post, that you carefully didn't quote.

Do better.

Quit being juvenile. If you want to be treated like you are over 13 then act like it.

I have no obligation to engage in every piece of tripe said, and relegating "your position" to the part that led with "alternatively" is merely a backtracking on the non-alternate part of your post. As in, what should be considered your core statements. I continue to have no reason to pontificate about middle school philosophy, so feel free to believe that whatever dreck you meant with it is not being argued against. Only the parts where you were actually making a point against fatman's post.

ellis123 posted...

Quit being juvenile. If you want to be treated like you are over 13 then act like it.

I have no obligation to engage in every piece of tripe said, and relegating "your position" to the part that led with "alternatively" is merely a backtracking on the non-alternate part of your post. As in, what should be considered your core statements. I continue to have no reason to pontificate about middle school philosophy, so feel free to believe that whatever dreck you meant with it is not being argued against. Only the parts where you were actually making a point against fatman's post.

That was a lot of text to say nothing whatsoever. Was there a point you were trying to make?

The better way to ask this:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Epicurus

The answer you will get from the faithful is free will, which is fine from a philosophical standpoint as being forced to be good would be totalitarian.

The problem is the inconsistency. The faithful think God is responsible for anything good that happens, and completely uninvolved in anything bad that happens.

As Carlin posited decades ago, if he has his divine plan and hes going to do what he wants anyway, why bother praying in the first place?

Personally, I dont see how anyone could look at the state of the world and think an omnipotent omnipresent benevolent deity has an active hand in anything. The wolds been going to hell in a hand basket for ages, and the evil and corrupt only further consolidate their power and wealth while squeezing more and more out of the rest of us. And half the populace is helping them.

The free will argument is all well and good, but theres nothing about free will involved in children (or anyone, for that matter) dying of cancer. You would think an omnipotent omnipresent benevolent deity would eradicate cancer as theres no free will reason for it to exist.

I feel like in the best case, the deists were right, and God created the universe and subsequently became a kid with an ant farm.

PraetorXyn posted...

I feel like in the best case, the deists were right, and God created the universe and subsequently became a kid with an ant farm.

I remember reading that several of the framers of the US constitution were indeed Deists, but don't source check me tonight.

Long week, drinking wine.

Mussurana posted...

I remember reading that several of the framers of the US constitution were indeed Deists, but don't source check me tonight.

Long week, drinking wine.

They were. Thats where I first heard the term.

I try to avoid religious conversations because I'm not knowledgeable enough. but it does frustrate me that every time I asked a religious person something similar, it was always hand-waved with "God works in mysterious ways".

PraetorXyn posted...

They were. Thats where I first heard the term.

Not uncommon intellectual position of the time, given the level of scientific understanding available.

Things have of course moved on, and as our understanding of the universe and our world has improved, our political leaders have naturally embraced this.

I fucking wish.

Voidgolem posted...

all evidence throughout history suggests that if there is a god, they are ambivalent at best

If there is a God, I take John Constatine's concept of God :

"God's a kid with an ant farm, lady. He's not planning anything.

Guns_of_Verdun posted...

God is a dick/non-caring

Always was.

Trump makes sense as a plague from old testament God.

Sandalorn posted...

If there is a God, I take John Constatine's concept of God :

"God's a kid with an ant farm, lady. He's not planning anything.

Also has the upside of maybe my favorite portrayal of Lucifer ever.

PraetorXyn posted...

Also has the upside of maybe my favorite portrayal of Lucifer ever.

The back and forth with Gabriel is pure gold.

"I do miss the old names."
"Looks like somebody doesn't have your back any more."

Only better portrayal IMO is Viggo in The Prophecy.

Reminds me of the Supernatural episode.

Basically, people can only truly be free if God stops babysitting them.

I guess God is trying to sort the false Christians

According to the standard fundie Christian account, a benevolent God created the Guinea worm.

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

This curse is well on the way to being eradicated by human effort.

God didn't make America vote for trump

Mussurana posted...

Maybe he's a scientist, observing the bacteria in his petri dish?

Or a child, pulling the wings off butterflies, if you're feeling pessimistic?

Alternatively, fairness, justice, equality etc, are entirely human constructs, and do not exist in nature.

They are artificial, and yet, we can achieve them, by our own means.

This doesn't make such concepts lesser, quite the reverse, they are ours. We created them, we aspire to them, and with effort, we can possess them.

Maybe, but if either were the case I don't see that as god deserving love and worship. And if us lowly humans can think of justice and all of that, surely an all powerful all knowing god could.

EPR-radar posted...

According to the standard fundie Christian account, a benevolent God created the Guinea worm.

And all those other viruses and bacteria along with cancer. It's hard to think a loving god exists when 5 year olds get brain cancer.

621 posted...

I try to avoid religious conversations because I'm not knowledgeable enough. but it does frustrate me that every time I asked a religious person something similar, it was always hand-waved with "God works in mysterious ways".

Thats because you arent really going to get a logical answer.

Im going to steal Preators post but:
The better way to ask this:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
Epicurus

Ill also add the question of if hes so omnipotent and benevolent..... why intentionally create a flawed world in the first place? When people say, "free will", it avoids this God intentionally created the existence and capability of evil and suffering knowingly.

Trump has the power to prove without a doubt that..

-Yes, One man is above the law.

-There is no such thing as karma in this world.

-Being a bully and a liar can get you very, very far and theres no punishment for it,

-And yes the is no justice in this world.

asdf8562 posted...

Ill also add the question of if hes so omnipotent and benevolent..... why intentionally create a flawed world in the first place? When people say, "free will", it avoids this God intentionally created the existence and capability of evil and suffering knowingly.

Flaws are what make things interesting. For the second part, you're basically asking for less freedom. If there were no bad, we wouldn't be able to apreciate good.

Tanthalas posted...

Flaws are what make things interesting. For the second part, you're basically asking for less freedom. If there were no bad, we wouldn't be able to apreciate good.

You are only proving my point that the logic with those who hide behind the "free will" argument. If your angle is "freedom", then problem stands:

• Is God willing to prevent evil and cruelty, but not able? Then God is not omnipotent.
• Is God able, but not willing? Then this God is malevolent. The angle of not "appreciating good" and "less freedom" doesnt stick as this conditions says we already dont have said freedom. Per God's intentional design, he intentionally made cancer, rape, cruelty and knew it was going to happen. Thats not "freedom."
• Is God both able and willing? Given God is sitting on their ass with cancer, rape, worse..... ya, again pretty malevolent.
• Is God neither able nor willing? Then this being is not the all powerful God hes hyped up to be.

Under the "freedom" angle the above still stands as said God isnt actually all powerful all knowing, OR God is those things and chose in his malevolent nature decided to intentionally design something to be flawed and cruel.

asdf8562 posted...

You are only proving my point that the logic with those who hide behind the "free will" argument. If your angle is "freedom", then problem stands:
* Is God willing to prevent evil and cruelty, but not able? Then God is not omnipotent.
* Is God able, but not willing? Then this God is malevolent.
* Is God both able and willing? Given God is sitting on their ass with cancer and rape..... ya, pretty malevolent.
* Is God neither able nor willing? Then this being is not the all powerful God hes hyped up to be.
Under the "freedom" angle the above still stands as said God isnt actually all powerful all knowing, OR God is those things and chose in his malevolent nature decided to intentionally design something to be flawed and cruel.

I think the better way to tackle this is things free will cant possibly have a hand in. Like children dying of cancer. Nobody wills kids to get cancer, etc. It just happens.

Thats the sort of thing youd expect an omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent deity to have a hand in. Hell, while Im at it, why does cancer exist? At least as far as we know, it isnt the case that some evildoer cooked up cancer in a lab and God had to let it happen to preserve free will.

Spontaneously existing non-communicable diseases that cause widespread harm seem exactly Gods domain. No consideration of free will, and if he designed the world, why do they exist in it?

PraetorXyn posted...

I think the better way to tackle this is things free will cant possibly have a hand in. Like children dying of cancer. Nobody wills kids to get cancer, etc. It just happens.

Thats the sort of thing youd expect an omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent deity to have a hand in. Hell, while Im at it, why does cancer exist? At least as far as we know, it isnt the case that some evildoer cooked up cancer in a lab and God had to let it happen to preserve free will.

Spontaneously existing non-communicable diseases that cause widespread harm seem exactly Gods domain. No consideration of free will, and if he designed the world, why do they exist in it?

Thats what Im saying. Those who genuinely believe in the "free will" excuse tend to want it both ways on the God being benevolence and omnipotent.

They'll argue hes benevolent... but will ignore some very un benevolent things. Or claiming omnipotence... but even if this being is omnipotent... it points to this being intentionally and knowingly created what he knew would be flawed, cruel and atrocious.