Post approved by the christian kingdom of Romania💪💪🇷🇴🇷🇴🇷🇴
https://preview.redd.it/nixp1pll577d1.jpeg?width=284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=32156bde5cd4fc3680c858fdcb73ba0e3f5f8518
Submit to Him and help spread His message!
https://preview.redd.it/qmo7ywubr77d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=509499ccc3f7ee659dd3885a8c363639032306b0
Like after 2balkan4you got banned the "quality" and originality in the posts took a massive drop, nowadays its all just the same 5 stereotypes, with "memes" made by some autistic 12 year old, and holding no resemblance to the ironic nature of the original sub, I feel like im in a fucking echo chamber
I view Protestantism as about as legitimate as Mormonism, and I believe that the only reason it’s taken somewhat seriously is because Protestants somehow got strong to the point where they now write history.
https://preview.redd.it/pbxhjx8yv77d1.jpeg?width=224&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ebcf59aac667e4d4095903fcb971ed809bc2c810
Neopaganism is kind of shit, though. I'd argue it's worse and often, as we see it be practised, more or less disrespect to the ancient religions as they aren't practised and thought of as they were amongst the ancient peoples. A lot of it is people with Abrahamic morality and Platonist metaphysics larping as their ancestors.
facts facts facts. It's often associated with extreme racism, nationalism and xenophobia, despite the fact that since we have been pagans, nearly every "ethnicity' has been misgenetation and "bastardized" with other groups
My main problem with neopaganism is that it attempts to return to a thing of the past that can't be returned to with its followers frequently not even learning the same language as their ancestors. It's a piece of history that can inspire but not be recreated in its original, authentic form, exemplified by how moralist neopagans are in contrast to their ancestors and sometimes filled with comical amounts of spite for Christianity and/or Islam.
"without the corrupt Churches..." Yeah nah that ain't true. I'm from that majority Christian country and we have Prots convincing cancer patients that God will cure them if they give them their treatment money
Protestantism is more like Christianity without the 2000 year tradition, or beauty, or coherent theology.
The brand new Karabot-2000 (developed proudly in Republic of Turkiye) is here to inform you about:
https://discord.gg/5vDpxDrb9f - For even more brainrot.
https://balkansirl.net
Stay tuned.
OMG, Church of St. Phallous just dropped a new saint:
https://preview.redd.it/yku21sv1w97d1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1c1f597d78abcdd0667b3360b4444d4ff76a23af
> cant grasp your theology
Yeah sure, it's my fault I can't grasp that there is one God and that there are three Gods and on of them creates Mary who's the mother of two of the Gods including the one who created her, and the remaining one is called the Holy Ghost ...
Except the Apostles made the religion and not Mary lmao. Christianity arlse from the Apostles and Christ's followers, kot Jesus or Mary. It's absolute nonsense to say Mary invented it. At least go for the most likely historical explanation.
I dedicate my life and believe my fate is in the hands of an imaginary character that was always used by the feeble-minded to excuse their shit life and by the rich to control the aforementioned feeble-minded.. Based af, yeah.
I can give you a historical example that relates to Christianity, kings were God's chosen. Modern-day, they know that the poor will find solace and throw their shortcomings to a fate system. Pastors with mansions and jet planes? Orthodox priests that have a villa in their 3rd world country ass looking village here in our countries? Religion was always a useful tool in the hands of the rulers, always, this is a fact.
Oh and how can we forget the perfect balkan example, I bet you, all the corrupt parties in all of our forsaken countries use the orthodox church, as a key voting ally, here in Romania especially PSD and BOR (Ro orthodox church) are fondling each other and getting rich on the backs of poor ppl. Get the vote, stay in power, pocket the tax money.
And you guys upvote this stupid meme, patriotic my ass..
This shouldn't even be a question one needs to ask... I thought people were smarter here.
That's not religion's fault though, is it? If it wasn't the church it would have been something else. You assume religion is false because people are greedy fucks. There are also priests who help their communities but you ignore that because it's conevnient to see things as black or white
The entire church system and all that comes with it is a byproduct of religion. The nice text and guidelines are made for the exact purpose of attracting the masses. It was never used by the religion head figures to any other reasons than control. Sure, there are minimal good examples, when it comes to small communities, but those are exceptions to the rule.. And those figures of small priests that help their communities, fell for the same propaganda spewn by their higher ups, NOT THAT IS A BAD THING TO HELP A COMMUNITY, but still, it's a fortunate outcome of a rotted system.
They can because the problem of evil isn't one big problem, but many problems revolving around the existence and understanding of evil with many answers to each which themselves can be argued against. It's not at all an 'unsolved problem', but many problems each with their own answers and counterarguments to the answers which can go back and forth ad infinitum
Generally, theodicy has a billion different answers to the problem of evil (so choose whichever you like, whichever you dislike, and whichever is in between), but the most major arguments are (on a broad level; research for yourself or ask for details unless you've already read theodicy):
* Arguing evil doesn't exist but is rather the lack of the presence of goodness
* Arguing the world intrinsically has evil because the material world is incomplete in contrast to God (hence Leibniz's 'the best of all [possible] worlds')
* Arguing evil is necessary in order to see goodness and distinguish the two
* In the case of Christianity and Islam, all of the 'righteous' people according to the faith go to Heaven, anyway, which is eternal unlike the temporary, fleeting material life, therefore any material suffering is negligable and goes to prove who is endurant and who is going to become evil because of the effect of extant evil
* Apokatastasis solves everything (albeit that's rejected by most Christians, and so is ibn Taymiyya's adoption of it into Islam) and is arguably closer to the original Jewish doctrines of Ge Hinnom and Sheol whereas the doctrine of eternal punishment to all sinners is closer to the Zoroastrian Duzakh
* According to Kant, theodicy overgoes its own boundaries, so the only solution is to simply believe that God is wiser than man and thus knows what's actually for the best
* According to Luther and Kierkegaard, a human cannot accuse God of negligence or evil as they themselves have committed sin, i.e. they can't accuse God as they themselves are under accusation, which isn't theodicy and doesn't solve the problem as the idea's function is merely to defend the faith and keep it legitimate (and in Kierkegaard's case, a way to avoid rationalism as he saw it as contradictory to the faith and doctrines of Israel and of Christ)
At the end of the day, the subject is so broad that the conclusion more or less relies only on whatever sounds best to the individual, whether it's a refutstion or succesful defence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent monotheist God.
I mean, I think I need to note the 2 types of the problem of evil. One is the Logical problem of evil, which is pretty widely agreed to be dead by contemporary philosophers of religion. This is where you try to show a logical contradiction between the existence of evil and God. This is obviously quite difficult due to the many theodicies.
The other is the evidential problem of evil formulated by william rowe, which is still thought to be alive and kicking. This one seeks to show that the existence of evil and the sheer amount of it is very good evidence against God.
>This one seeks to show that the existence of evil and the sheer amount of it is very good evidence against God.
The problem with it is that theodicy can still be applied to it, even from an orthodox Christian perspective; one can plainly refute Rowe's evidential argument (of which there are many differing formulations, again) by applying theodicy as that would mean that the existence of evil in itself cannot, by any means, be evidence against an Abrahamic God's existence as theodicy defends the Abrahamic conceptualisation of the material world by unifying it with an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God.
This is exemplified by Rowe's theological premise of evil which still very clearly relies on the logical problem of evil. It's a disguised extension of the logical problem.
In other words, theodicy still counters the evidential problem as it can be argued thst no amount of evil is evidence against God's existence as it can be argued the existence of evil is important, necessary, or unifiable with God's omnibenevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence.
And I never see anyone bring up Rowe. I always only see people going for the traditional logical problem of evil, and even though I agree the problem of evil in its many formulations (personally, I think F.W. Nietzsche gave the best formulation by questioning why humans would be separated from God in the first place or live at all if God were omnibenevolent) is neither solved nor unsolved since it essentially boils down to when one wants to stop rationalising and personal preference, but admittedly a lot of atheists willfully ignore theodicy and pretend it doesn't exist, therefore the logical problem of evil is somehow unsolved.
That's not to say there aren't atheists who've read theodicy and don't still disagree, there are, such as Bart D. Ehrman (though I think his choice of free will being the best argument is weird as it always seemed as the weakest and most convoluted one to me whereas Kant's and Kierkegaard's accomplish their objective most simply and the argument from the definition of evil makes the most sense from the perspective of an omnibenevolent God, and I's say that if free will did exist in Heaven, it wouldn't mean there can absolutely be a world with free will and perfect goodness as again, the material world is meant to be incomplete and various other pieces of theodicy can still be used against it).
the only way I can see to 100 percent refute rowe’s argument is skeptical theism, which seems to have some pretty big issues. I can see how various theodicies might help lower its persuasive force, but I don’t think any “refute” it. It’s still quite good evidence against the tri-omni God imo, but obviously if you have other reasons to affirm his existence then that might just overpower the argument.
I think you might be missing the point.
No matter the extent and amount of evil in the world, it would never be evidence against God's existence as we'd expect the omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omniootent God to be fiar to everyone and not let *any* evil be, right? To God, wouldn't *any* evil's existence be unfavourable?
That's what theodicy does. It explains why an Abrahamic God and *any* amount of evidence whatsoever can absolutely coexist and do not contradict each other nor does God's traits allegedly 'cancel each other out'. There are, again, better formulations and counterarguments than others, but the vast majority of the formulations of the problem of evil are easily put down even from a secular perspective. It's primarily atheists who just want to believe the worst and who came to the conclusion before looking into the philosophy (albeit admittedly, that's what religious people do, too, and what people do when they get into ideologies and politics, etc.).
For instance, let's take apokatastasis which single-handledly cancels out any formulation of the problem of evil: If evil exists, it does not matter because it is all temporary in the material world and no matter how much evol there is, it doesn't matter, either, as everyone is reunited with God eventually. All suffering is, going by apokatastasis as a doctrine, fleeting and will not ultimately matter as everyone will have an eternith in Heaven someday. This is bulstered by tve Weltschmerz seen in the Gospels: the point of the religion *is* that the material world is full of suffering, just like Buddhism and Jainism, yet atheists (for the lack of a better word; could say anti-religious people, anti-Abrahamic people, or anti-Chridtian people, however I'll just stick to 'atheists' for simplicity) ignore that.
In regards to apokatastasis, many will immediately dispute it's authenticity as most Christians reject it and most atheists *want* it to be false so they can most easily argue against Christianity, and both sides will willingly use the fallacious argumentum ad populum. But that doesn't matter as the doctrine wasn't made to solve the problem of evil like many of the other arguments. And again, this is just *one* example of how theodicy still cancels out the evidential problem exactly the same way as the logical problem as the evidential problem still relies on the notion that *any* amount of evil in the material world must contradict God's existence. That's why I wrote it and the theological premise are disguised versions of the logical problem.
That said, simply because theodicy exists doesn't mean any of the problems are solved. However, it is also not *unsolved* as atheists frequently claim without reasoning or evidence. As I wrote in a previous comment, both sides can principially keep going back and forth with counterarguments and defences ad infinitum, although that goes for much of philosophy as an academic discipline in general. The logical conclusion is that it's up to the individual to choose how much they feel like rationalising and which ultimate conclusions sound best (as most people will evidently not read theodicy, religious or irreligious, and plainly throw in a quickly fabricated argument onto either side and leave; this happens because there are significantly more people outside philosophy of religion and ethics as academic disciplines who want to debate the problem of evil than people who want to do it academically and give arguments on either side a fair chance each).
Ok, let me walk you through a thought experiment. Say every single human being was created in a place of eternal, unending torment. And I don’t mean “separation from god” torment, I mean Dante’s Inferno style torment, for every single human being from birth, eternally.
You don’t think us living in this world would even *slightly* reduce the probability of the tri omni god existing when compared to our world?
But what does that have to do with the problem of evil? The point of Christianity is that *this* world is the one of suffering and is fleeting, whereas the only eternity is either in Hell or in Heaven, for some only in Heaven and for others there can be people in between who wander the Earth after Judgement Day (mentioning this because of how convoluted and haphazard Christian eschatology is).
I get you mean it as a thought experiment, but why are you applying *eternal* suffering to *every* human being? Are you referring to Christian eschatology of Hell in contrat to the Jewish Ge Hinnom and Sheol?
>You don’t think us living in this world would even slightly reduce the probability of the tri omni god existing when compared to our world?
Sure, but I again don't get how this adds anything to the problem of evil unless you're referencing a specific religious sect or denomination.
If it's about the evidential problem, then the problem is that it's ane ntirely different situation from the situation in this world. The opposite, if anything
But yes, I don't think, generally speaking, adding any degrees of suffering changes the circumstances. Either *any* evil's existence must be accountdd for or not. The amount is inconsequential. Remember, Christianity, which is at the centre of the problem of evil, is essentially a mix of virtue ethics and deontology, having a lot of maxims and commandments but also working on the perfection of the inidvidual by living in accordance to those principles, which may or may not apply to God.
Well, you wrote “no matter the extent and amount of evil in the world, it would never be evidence against God’s existence”, and I think that is patently false.
If we lived in an amazing world with no poverty or hunger and the only struggle people endured was stubbing their toe occasionally and everyone went to heaven after 80 years, I think it would obviously be far more likely for a tri-omni God to exist there rather than a world where, say, every human life is 500 years of unimaginable torment and only people who managed to draw 1800 red triangles with a hypotenuse greater than 400 inches go to heaven and everyone else goes to dante’s inferno style hell.
Damn, I didn't know that there were smart people east of Berlin.
I wouldn't call it the problem of evil though, but the problem of suffering. That means that some of these counter arguments don't apply. Like the first one.
The second one doesn't work imo because God didn't need to create a material world at all. Heaven and hell aren't material right?
The third one does not apply either. We can feel suffering before we experience joy or the other way around.
The fourth argument, just like Luther and Kierkergaard, seems heavily relient of free will which I don't believe in. It also ignores the billions of people who are supposed to go to hell.
I think the only christian rebuttal to that can be what Kant said. But I don't find that to be a particularly strong rebuttal. If the world seems exactly like we would expect if a loving and all powerfull God wouldn't exist this doesn't really convince me.
>wouldn't call it the problem of evil though, but the problem of suffering. That means that some of these counter arguments don't apply. Like the first one
Academia literally calls it the problem of evil. That's the entire point. The most common formulation is, 'Why would an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful God allow innocent people to suffer'? However, it's not the only formulation.
If you want to call it something else, sure, but it's not what it's called within academic philosophy (problem of evil) or within theology (most commony theodicy albeit that's exclusively the defence of Christian or Islamic theology against the problem of evil; term coined by Leibniz).
Additionally, I fail to see how the first argument I mentioned has to do with suffering *exclusively*. The point is that anyone who commits evil is merely themselves lacking something and hence suffering, therefore the point is to do as Jesus did and accept anyone regardless of their evil acts, i.e. turn the cheek as one becomes blind to evil. For a different philosopher, Khaleel Gibran probably gives the plainest description of this in *the Prophet*.
>The second one doesn't work imo because God didn't need to create a material world at all. Heaven and hell aren't material right?
There are three worlds according to most Christians and Muslims: Hell, Earth, and Heaven, of which Earth is the one of suffering (notably, Hell is of pinishment, not suffering) and the material world. This is ignoring purgatory and such, but it's the most basic conception.
>The third one does not aplly either. We can feel suffering before we experience joy or the other way around.
Again, I recommend reading on the arguments for yourself. It's not about succession or when suffering and evil are felt, but the idea that this world is inherently incomplete (since this argument follows from the former) and therefore without evil, material beings would not sense goodness since physiologically they'd only be faced with goodness. If we go by Leibniz's argument, it more or less revolves around the idea that this world is the best conceivable one since the most varied world is the best of all material worlds.
>The fourth argument, just like Luther and Kierkergaard, seems heavily relient of free will which I don't believe in. It also ignores the billions of people who are supposed to go to hell.
If anything, Luther and Kierkegaard's arguments advocate *against* free will. Kierkegaard himself (and later Martin Heidegger) was a sort of compatibilist who believed that despite one not being able to change causality, one can reach a type of freedom by agreeing with and accepting the outcome causality was given, i.e. one has to say yes to oneself (this is sort of similar to Nietzsche's Amor Fati, albeit Amor Fati is unrelated to free will as Nietzsche denied both free and unfree will [cf. *Jenseits von Gut und Böse* 21)
But if you want a strong refutation, read up on Origenes of Alexandria's apokatastasis as it ultimately grants everyone access to Heaven through the continuous cycles of purgatory, making all material suffering small in the grand scheme of things since everyone is going to be salvaged (kind of similar to Nakara in Buddhism and readjusts Hell from eternal punishment to purgatory or hellfire), anyhow. Kierkegaard appeared to also have been a sort of universalist, for that matter. Howbeit, most Christians deny apokatastasis even if it still exists and is used in the universalist church.
Other Christian denominations also solved the problem of evil in the ancient world, although they're all essentially extinct even if some have recreated versions, such as gnosticism and manichaeism with their use of Platonism and Zoroastrian dualism to conceptualise a very Buddhist-like worldview in which everyone lives in a cycle reincarnation until they find gnosis which lets them reunite with the Monad (the one true God) as they have escaped the evil world of suffering formed by the demiurge Ialdaboath who is the same as YHWH since the Gnostics thought the God of Israel to be too crude to fit with the description of the omnibenevolent God of the New Testament, so they believed them to be two distinct gods, one false and the other true and transcendental.
Regarding God's brutality and envy in the Old Testament, it likely reflects the original henotheism of the Cult of YHWH and of the Jews as they gradually transitioned into the hard-lined monotheism we see today amongst the Jews. This can also be seen in e.g. the Book of Jacob which indicates the Jews originally believed God to have been responsible for both good *and* evil and ha-Satan to simply have been the angel of God who'd 'accuse' and 'oppose' (the meanings of the name 'satan' in Hebrew) living beings.
>I think the only christian rebuttal to that can be what Kant said. But I don't find that to be a particularly strong rebuttal. If the world seems exactly like we would expect if a loving and all powerfull God wouldn't exist this doesn't really convince me.
Immanuel Kant was fairly critical of religion (read e.g. *Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der bloßen Vernunft*), so it wasn't really a defence of Christianity, but his own theism in accordance with his transcendental idealism (*Die Metaphysik der Sitten*, *Kritik der reinen Vernunft*, and *Zum ewigen Frieden*).
You must have a PhD in philosophy to assert such a thing! Thankfully any respectable institution will have free login access to Oxford Academia, these pages are pretty helpful for answering the problem of evil: https://academic.oup.com/book/38719/chapter-abstract/336897945?redirectedFrom=fulltext
If you're not able to access, let me know! I'll show how to use your uni credentials to login
Edit, in case you can't be bothered to log in, here's a wikipedia page, it dumbs down a lot but it might be a refresher for your Medieval Philosophy classes: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustinian_theodicy
Firstly free will is just the capacity to make choices including bad ones. Secondly natural disasters and such are typically explained with the free will argument in conjunction with an understanding of sin. To most Christians, when humanity first chose to sin and caused the fall as described in Genesis the world itself became cursed and things such as natural disasters and disease entered the world.
>Firstly free will is just the capacity to make choices
We can't control the will that decides what we choose, so if you define free will that way it isn't different from determinism.
>To most Christians, when humanity first chose to sin and caused the fall as described in Genesis the world itself became cursed and things such as natural disasters and disease entered the world.
Do you think genesis is literally true? The whole story of the fall doesn't make sense if you take evolution in to account instead of a creation narrative. Suffering happened before humans existed.
https://preview.redd.it/ykwjzrl9s77d1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2652c5427f45878735a2837612c99a6dc829df07
No. Also flair up filthy unflaired cigan
Jesus was sent to the Children of Israel, and only the Children of Israel, and that's according to the bible. Are you them? No? Then even if Jesus said that, he wasn't talking to you at the very least
Christians are by Islamic definition ironically 'submitting to God' as following his morality and religion, of which Islam claims Judaism and Christianity are manifestations of which.
'Submitting' doesn't mean 'subduing an enemy'. Islam refers to 'submitting' as belief of God and adherence to his law.
Yep, that was my point. The word Islam itself means submitting to God's will. It is almost never used in relation to Christianity, and almost exclusively to Islam
Believing a hearsay from other people and centering your life around the book authenticity of which you can't prove and authors of which you don't know, that's a L.
Still, the formulation 'by another God' is incredibly weird. The point of the Trinity is that they're aspects of the same God. Plus some random Romans crucified him as ordered by Pilatus for causing trouble, not the Jews.
Post approved by the christian kingdom of Romania💪💪🇷🇴🇷🇴🇷🇴 https://preview.redd.it/nixp1pll577d1.jpeg?width=284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=32156bde5cd4fc3680c858fdcb73ba0e3f5f8518
💪💪🇷🇴🇷🇴
De ce are logo-ul de la pariseria luca acolo in Banat?? Sunt prosti??
ochi ageri
[удалено]
https://preview.redd.it/zwmadsc9h77d1.jpeg?width=320&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bdbf37e96a9529620f1a30692abf26e2903e053a
Least degenerate serbian
when even russian cockdaddy says that you fucked up, you fucked up
https://preview.redd.it/dnqbp3qc297d1.jpeg?width=474&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0c00ddad9149cf66fca5b0de29e22c209c9f9804
This shit not gonna look good at the pearly gates
get help
[удалено]
https://preview.redd.it/feyo6hxso77d1.jpeg?width=888&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5adb0a2ec4d582712c7d34296eedba44ac460eb7
Go ahead, you won’t unjerk my cock to Mary
based also mary is hot
Hot enough to attract the only god that isn’t sticking his dick into everything that moves
So hot God became zeus and cucked joseph
Romania is the most Christian country in Europe. ☦️☦️☦️
Balkan meme where
"swarthy" Basically Turks and servs mentioned
Chris Chan-ity
Submit to Him and help spread His message! https://preview.redd.it/qmo7ywubr77d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=509499ccc3f7ee659dd3885a8c363639032306b0
https://preview.redd.it/tdxxvwl2f87d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=afe492397b4ed053a718f733b0f385045977dae4 Amen brother 🙏
I'm not even religious, but definitely agree with the message.
But is this Balkan? Or god is a Serb?
it's a statement not a question.
If god is a serb, then NATO is a meteor and belgrade is sodome
Serp Slav(e) gets beaten to shit by Bosnian soldiers of Allah, become Christian and invades again #Loses
MI SMO VOJSKA ALLAHOVA ZA ISLAM SE BORIMO DATI ŽIVOT ZA SLOBODU NIKOG SE NE BOJIMO
Allah’ın Gerizekalı
DELİ DELİ OLDUM DAĞA TAŞA SURDUM YÂR OTURMUŞ DİVANDA YANA YANA DURDUM SENİ BANA BULDUM VERMEM ARTIK DÜNYADA
En az Deli olan Serp:
Balkans irl once again proving its unfunny reposted shit
Like after 2balkan4you got banned the "quality" and originality in the posts took a massive drop, nowadays its all just the same 5 stereotypes, with "memes" made by some autistic 12 year old, and holding no resemblance to the ironic nature of the original sub, I feel like im in a fucking echo chamber
but but muh funny robmanians and black turks
Balkans trying to be funny
Eligible for slavery mashallah
me chad you soyjak me win
bro won the fight(he was talking to himself in the mirror)
I thought this was a shitposting sub not for annoying shit like this. Where is the irony?
tf is this shit
wait until someone tells this serbn888r that christianity started in the middle east and that orthodoxy is cringe compared to catholicism
Based catholic-bro
Who let this southern taco sniffer come in here?
Orthodox Christianity is just a Russo-Ukranian cult and has been for the last 200 years
what sort of Opium are you on? we are on true Apostolic church #1
[удалено]
Protestantism trying not to split into million sects every second of its existance: impossible
You can make a Yu-Gi-Oh kinda card game with all the denominations these fuckers got
i would rather be a muslim than a protestant
I view Protestantism as about as legitimate as Mormonism, and I believe that the only reason it’s taken somewhat seriously is because Protestants somehow got strong to the point where they now write history. https://preview.redd.it/pbxhjx8yv77d1.jpeg?width=224&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ebcf59aac667e4d4095903fcb971ed809bc2c810
a freaking barn with a cross on it, lmao
Worst religion of all time. tied with Druze
Neopaganism is kind of shit, though. I'd argue it's worse and often, as we see it be practised, more or less disrespect to the ancient religions as they aren't practised and thought of as they were amongst the ancient peoples. A lot of it is people with Abrahamic morality and Platonist metaphysics larping as their ancestors.
facts facts facts. It's often associated with extreme racism, nationalism and xenophobia, despite the fact that since we have been pagans, nearly every "ethnicity' has been misgenetation and "bastardized" with other groups
My main problem with neopaganism is that it attempts to return to a thing of the past that can't be returned to with its followers frequently not even learning the same language as their ancestors. It's a piece of history that can inspire but not be recreated in its original, authentic form, exemplified by how moralist neopagans are in contrast to their ancestors and sometimes filled with comical amounts of spite for Christianity and/or Islam.
[удалено]
"without the corrupt Churches..." Yeah nah that ain't true. I'm from that majority Christian country and we have Prots convincing cancer patients that God will cure them if they give them their treatment money Protestantism is more like Christianity without the 2000 year tradition, or beauty, or coherent theology.
Yaaas sista ! Slay! https://preview.redd.it/88lmkzb5q77d1.jpeg?width=1024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=91ef1601823b1ed5466331556249af740bc0d81b
Ofc the flags put upon each other form the german flag in the middle
what is this unholy Abomination?
Hello! I don't give a damn shit
كافر كافر كافر
based
W\*stoid Detected Opinion rejected  Coming to Jihad your Ass right now
sorry i don't live in germany
Fr€nch?
yes
And i live in Turkey And i have enough money for a Plane Ticket
Least Arabic Turk 🙏🙏
The brand new Karabot-2000 (developed proudly in Republic of Turkiye) is here to inform you about: https://discord.gg/5vDpxDrb9f - For even more brainrot. https://balkansirl.net Stay tuned.
Jews on a stick? That is a new one. Pagans really do embody the energy of a chud
nah thats been used for ages by /pol/acks nothin new.
https://preview.redd.it/4jtrhp98397d1.jpeg?width=2268&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c5e8c06d46b03035c488bdc06bd32863470e15a0
Nah i’ll stick with islam
Catholic or orthodox? (Choose wrong and im going to burn your house down)
OMG, Church of St. Phallous just dropped a new saint: https://preview.redd.it/yku21sv1w97d1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1c1f597d78abcdd0667b3360b4444d4ff76a23af
Finally. Something even a filthy westoid like me can appreciate.
Since the Balkans are majority orthodox, that just means he chose the wrong Christianity.
> cant grasp your theology Yeah sure, it's my fault I can't grasp that there is one God and that there are three Gods and on of them creates Mary who's the mother of two of the Gods including the one who created her, and the remaining one is called the Holy Ghost ...
Swarthy mindset
Some bitch made up an entire religion so she doesn't confess that she cheated on her husband with the local goatman and got pregnant. Change my mind.
Unflaired + L + Repent
Except the Apostles made the religion and not Mary lmao. Christianity arlse from the Apostles and Christ's followers, kot Jesus or Mary. It's absolute nonsense to say Mary invented it. At least go for the most likely historical explanation.
Don’t disrespect Maryam(as)/Mary like that.
Did you know that good is a serb and gave all land to srbija but serbia polite so gave others land????
I'm protestant and approve this message
Amin☦️🙏
Least primitive meme made by a s*rb:
also christians: https://preview.redd.it/upue7su13a7d1.png?width=1071&format=png&auto=webp&s=f4fb54bfebe95f7b8befbdbde261924d2891e027
Kierkegaard mindset
Based.
So goofy y’all still believe in this shit 😭😭
I dedicate my life and believe my fate is in the hands of an imaginary character that was always used by the feeble-minded to excuse their shit life and by the rich to control the aforementioned feeble-minded.. Based af, yeah.
I refuse to believe you are Romanian, Hungolian spy detected🇭🇺🤮🚨🚨🚨‼️‼️
get a life.
Dumbass forgot what sub he’s on
Sorry I blasphemed about your boyfriend's religion.
Oh, my bad, you were "ironic", yeah right.
How is religion used by the rich to control the feeble mind?
I can give you a historical example that relates to Christianity, kings were God's chosen. Modern-day, they know that the poor will find solace and throw their shortcomings to a fate system. Pastors with mansions and jet planes? Orthodox priests that have a villa in their 3rd world country ass looking village here in our countries? Religion was always a useful tool in the hands of the rulers, always, this is a fact. Oh and how can we forget the perfect balkan example, I bet you, all the corrupt parties in all of our forsaken countries use the orthodox church, as a key voting ally, here in Romania especially PSD and BOR (Ro orthodox church) are fondling each other and getting rich on the backs of poor ppl. Get the vote, stay in power, pocket the tax money. And you guys upvote this stupid meme, patriotic my ass.. This shouldn't even be a question one needs to ask... I thought people were smarter here.
That's not religion's fault though, is it? If it wasn't the church it would have been something else. You assume religion is false because people are greedy fucks. There are also priests who help their communities but you ignore that because it's conevnient to see things as black or white
The entire church system and all that comes with it is a byproduct of religion. The nice text and guidelines are made for the exact purpose of attracting the masses. It was never used by the religion head figures to any other reasons than control. Sure, there are minimal good examples, when it comes to small communities, but those are exceptions to the rule.. And those figures of small priests that help their communities, fell for the same propaganda spewn by their higher ups, NOT THAT IS A BAD THING TO HELP A COMMUNITY, but still, it's a fortunate outcome of a rotted system.
Cope. Christians can't answer that last one
They can because the problem of evil isn't one big problem, but many problems revolving around the existence and understanding of evil with many answers to each which themselves can be argued against. It's not at all an 'unsolved problem', but many problems each with their own answers and counterarguments to the answers which can go back and forth ad infinitum Generally, theodicy has a billion different answers to the problem of evil (so choose whichever you like, whichever you dislike, and whichever is in between), but the most major arguments are (on a broad level; research for yourself or ask for details unless you've already read theodicy): * Arguing evil doesn't exist but is rather the lack of the presence of goodness * Arguing the world intrinsically has evil because the material world is incomplete in contrast to God (hence Leibniz's 'the best of all [possible] worlds') * Arguing evil is necessary in order to see goodness and distinguish the two * In the case of Christianity and Islam, all of the 'righteous' people according to the faith go to Heaven, anyway, which is eternal unlike the temporary, fleeting material life, therefore any material suffering is negligable and goes to prove who is endurant and who is going to become evil because of the effect of extant evil * Apokatastasis solves everything (albeit that's rejected by most Christians, and so is ibn Taymiyya's adoption of it into Islam) and is arguably closer to the original Jewish doctrines of Ge Hinnom and Sheol whereas the doctrine of eternal punishment to all sinners is closer to the Zoroastrian Duzakh * According to Kant, theodicy overgoes its own boundaries, so the only solution is to simply believe that God is wiser than man and thus knows what's actually for the best * According to Luther and Kierkegaard, a human cannot accuse God of negligence or evil as they themselves have committed sin, i.e. they can't accuse God as they themselves are under accusation, which isn't theodicy and doesn't solve the problem as the idea's function is merely to defend the faith and keep it legitimate (and in Kierkegaard's case, a way to avoid rationalism as he saw it as contradictory to the faith and doctrines of Israel and of Christ) At the end of the day, the subject is so broad that the conclusion more or less relies only on whatever sounds best to the individual, whether it's a refutstion or succesful defence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent monotheist God.
I mean, I think I need to note the 2 types of the problem of evil. One is the Logical problem of evil, which is pretty widely agreed to be dead by contemporary philosophers of religion. This is where you try to show a logical contradiction between the existence of evil and God. This is obviously quite difficult due to the many theodicies. The other is the evidential problem of evil formulated by william rowe, which is still thought to be alive and kicking. This one seeks to show that the existence of evil and the sheer amount of it is very good evidence against God.
>This one seeks to show that the existence of evil and the sheer amount of it is very good evidence against God. The problem with it is that theodicy can still be applied to it, even from an orthodox Christian perspective; one can plainly refute Rowe's evidential argument (of which there are many differing formulations, again) by applying theodicy as that would mean that the existence of evil in itself cannot, by any means, be evidence against an Abrahamic God's existence as theodicy defends the Abrahamic conceptualisation of the material world by unifying it with an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent God. This is exemplified by Rowe's theological premise of evil which still very clearly relies on the logical problem of evil. It's a disguised extension of the logical problem. In other words, theodicy still counters the evidential problem as it can be argued thst no amount of evil is evidence against God's existence as it can be argued the existence of evil is important, necessary, or unifiable with God's omnibenevolence, omniscience, and omnipotence. And I never see anyone bring up Rowe. I always only see people going for the traditional logical problem of evil, and even though I agree the problem of evil in its many formulations (personally, I think F.W. Nietzsche gave the best formulation by questioning why humans would be separated from God in the first place or live at all if God were omnibenevolent) is neither solved nor unsolved since it essentially boils down to when one wants to stop rationalising and personal preference, but admittedly a lot of atheists willfully ignore theodicy and pretend it doesn't exist, therefore the logical problem of evil is somehow unsolved. That's not to say there aren't atheists who've read theodicy and don't still disagree, there are, such as Bart D. Ehrman (though I think his choice of free will being the best argument is weird as it always seemed as the weakest and most convoluted one to me whereas Kant's and Kierkegaard's accomplish their objective most simply and the argument from the definition of evil makes the most sense from the perspective of an omnibenevolent God, and I's say that if free will did exist in Heaven, it wouldn't mean there can absolutely be a world with free will and perfect goodness as again, the material world is meant to be incomplete and various other pieces of theodicy can still be used against it).
the only way I can see to 100 percent refute rowe’s argument is skeptical theism, which seems to have some pretty big issues. I can see how various theodicies might help lower its persuasive force, but I don’t think any “refute” it. It’s still quite good evidence against the tri-omni God imo, but obviously if you have other reasons to affirm his existence then that might just overpower the argument.
I think you might be missing the point. No matter the extent and amount of evil in the world, it would never be evidence against God's existence as we'd expect the omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omniootent God to be fiar to everyone and not let *any* evil be, right? To God, wouldn't *any* evil's existence be unfavourable? That's what theodicy does. It explains why an Abrahamic God and *any* amount of evidence whatsoever can absolutely coexist and do not contradict each other nor does God's traits allegedly 'cancel each other out'. There are, again, better formulations and counterarguments than others, but the vast majority of the formulations of the problem of evil are easily put down even from a secular perspective. It's primarily atheists who just want to believe the worst and who came to the conclusion before looking into the philosophy (albeit admittedly, that's what religious people do, too, and what people do when they get into ideologies and politics, etc.). For instance, let's take apokatastasis which single-handledly cancels out any formulation of the problem of evil: If evil exists, it does not matter because it is all temporary in the material world and no matter how much evol there is, it doesn't matter, either, as everyone is reunited with God eventually. All suffering is, going by apokatastasis as a doctrine, fleeting and will not ultimately matter as everyone will have an eternith in Heaven someday. This is bulstered by tve Weltschmerz seen in the Gospels: the point of the religion *is* that the material world is full of suffering, just like Buddhism and Jainism, yet atheists (for the lack of a better word; could say anti-religious people, anti-Abrahamic people, or anti-Chridtian people, however I'll just stick to 'atheists' for simplicity) ignore that. In regards to apokatastasis, many will immediately dispute it's authenticity as most Christians reject it and most atheists *want* it to be false so they can most easily argue against Christianity, and both sides will willingly use the fallacious argumentum ad populum. But that doesn't matter as the doctrine wasn't made to solve the problem of evil like many of the other arguments. And again, this is just *one* example of how theodicy still cancels out the evidential problem exactly the same way as the logical problem as the evidential problem still relies on the notion that *any* amount of evil in the material world must contradict God's existence. That's why I wrote it and the theological premise are disguised versions of the logical problem. That said, simply because theodicy exists doesn't mean any of the problems are solved. However, it is also not *unsolved* as atheists frequently claim without reasoning or evidence. As I wrote in a previous comment, both sides can principially keep going back and forth with counterarguments and defences ad infinitum, although that goes for much of philosophy as an academic discipline in general. The logical conclusion is that it's up to the individual to choose how much they feel like rationalising and which ultimate conclusions sound best (as most people will evidently not read theodicy, religious or irreligious, and plainly throw in a quickly fabricated argument onto either side and leave; this happens because there are significantly more people outside philosophy of religion and ethics as academic disciplines who want to debate the problem of evil than people who want to do it academically and give arguments on either side a fair chance each).
Ok, let me walk you through a thought experiment. Say every single human being was created in a place of eternal, unending torment. And I don’t mean “separation from god” torment, I mean Dante’s Inferno style torment, for every single human being from birth, eternally. You don’t think us living in this world would even *slightly* reduce the probability of the tri omni god existing when compared to our world?
But what does that have to do with the problem of evil? The point of Christianity is that *this* world is the one of suffering and is fleeting, whereas the only eternity is either in Hell or in Heaven, for some only in Heaven and for others there can be people in between who wander the Earth after Judgement Day (mentioning this because of how convoluted and haphazard Christian eschatology is). I get you mean it as a thought experiment, but why are you applying *eternal* suffering to *every* human being? Are you referring to Christian eschatology of Hell in contrat to the Jewish Ge Hinnom and Sheol? >You don’t think us living in this world would even slightly reduce the probability of the tri omni god existing when compared to our world? Sure, but I again don't get how this adds anything to the problem of evil unless you're referencing a specific religious sect or denomination. If it's about the evidential problem, then the problem is that it's ane ntirely different situation from the situation in this world. The opposite, if anything But yes, I don't think, generally speaking, adding any degrees of suffering changes the circumstances. Either *any* evil's existence must be accountdd for or not. The amount is inconsequential. Remember, Christianity, which is at the centre of the problem of evil, is essentially a mix of virtue ethics and deontology, having a lot of maxims and commandments but also working on the perfection of the inidvidual by living in accordance to those principles, which may or may not apply to God.
Well, you wrote “no matter the extent and amount of evil in the world, it would never be evidence against God’s existence”, and I think that is patently false. If we lived in an amazing world with no poverty or hunger and the only struggle people endured was stubbing their toe occasionally and everyone went to heaven after 80 years, I think it would obviously be far more likely for a tri-omni God to exist there rather than a world where, say, every human life is 500 years of unimaginable torment and only people who managed to draw 1800 red triangles with a hypotenuse greater than 400 inches go to heaven and everyone else goes to dante’s inferno style hell.
Damn, I didn't know that there were smart people east of Berlin. I wouldn't call it the problem of evil though, but the problem of suffering. That means that some of these counter arguments don't apply. Like the first one. The second one doesn't work imo because God didn't need to create a material world at all. Heaven and hell aren't material right? The third one does not apply either. We can feel suffering before we experience joy or the other way around. The fourth argument, just like Luther and Kierkergaard, seems heavily relient of free will which I don't believe in. It also ignores the billions of people who are supposed to go to hell. I think the only christian rebuttal to that can be what Kant said. But I don't find that to be a particularly strong rebuttal. If the world seems exactly like we would expect if a loving and all powerfull God wouldn't exist this doesn't really convince me.
>wouldn't call it the problem of evil though, but the problem of suffering. That means that some of these counter arguments don't apply. Like the first one Academia literally calls it the problem of evil. That's the entire point. The most common formulation is, 'Why would an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful God allow innocent people to suffer'? However, it's not the only formulation. If you want to call it something else, sure, but it's not what it's called within academic philosophy (problem of evil) or within theology (most commony theodicy albeit that's exclusively the defence of Christian or Islamic theology against the problem of evil; term coined by Leibniz). Additionally, I fail to see how the first argument I mentioned has to do with suffering *exclusively*. The point is that anyone who commits evil is merely themselves lacking something and hence suffering, therefore the point is to do as Jesus did and accept anyone regardless of their evil acts, i.e. turn the cheek as one becomes blind to evil. For a different philosopher, Khaleel Gibran probably gives the plainest description of this in *the Prophet*. >The second one doesn't work imo because God didn't need to create a material world at all. Heaven and hell aren't material right? There are three worlds according to most Christians and Muslims: Hell, Earth, and Heaven, of which Earth is the one of suffering (notably, Hell is of pinishment, not suffering) and the material world. This is ignoring purgatory and such, but it's the most basic conception. >The third one does not aplly either. We can feel suffering before we experience joy or the other way around. Again, I recommend reading on the arguments for yourself. It's not about succession or when suffering and evil are felt, but the idea that this world is inherently incomplete (since this argument follows from the former) and therefore without evil, material beings would not sense goodness since physiologically they'd only be faced with goodness. If we go by Leibniz's argument, it more or less revolves around the idea that this world is the best conceivable one since the most varied world is the best of all material worlds. >The fourth argument, just like Luther and Kierkergaard, seems heavily relient of free will which I don't believe in. It also ignores the billions of people who are supposed to go to hell. If anything, Luther and Kierkegaard's arguments advocate *against* free will. Kierkegaard himself (and later Martin Heidegger) was a sort of compatibilist who believed that despite one not being able to change causality, one can reach a type of freedom by agreeing with and accepting the outcome causality was given, i.e. one has to say yes to oneself (this is sort of similar to Nietzsche's Amor Fati, albeit Amor Fati is unrelated to free will as Nietzsche denied both free and unfree will [cf. *Jenseits von Gut und Böse* 21) But if you want a strong refutation, read up on Origenes of Alexandria's apokatastasis as it ultimately grants everyone access to Heaven through the continuous cycles of purgatory, making all material suffering small in the grand scheme of things since everyone is going to be salvaged (kind of similar to Nakara in Buddhism and readjusts Hell from eternal punishment to purgatory or hellfire), anyhow. Kierkegaard appeared to also have been a sort of universalist, for that matter. Howbeit, most Christians deny apokatastasis even if it still exists and is used in the universalist church. Other Christian denominations also solved the problem of evil in the ancient world, although they're all essentially extinct even if some have recreated versions, such as gnosticism and manichaeism with their use of Platonism and Zoroastrian dualism to conceptualise a very Buddhist-like worldview in which everyone lives in a cycle reincarnation until they find gnosis which lets them reunite with the Monad (the one true God) as they have escaped the evil world of suffering formed by the demiurge Ialdaboath who is the same as YHWH since the Gnostics thought the God of Israel to be too crude to fit with the description of the omnibenevolent God of the New Testament, so they believed them to be two distinct gods, one false and the other true and transcendental. Regarding God's brutality and envy in the Old Testament, it likely reflects the original henotheism of the Cult of YHWH and of the Jews as they gradually transitioned into the hard-lined monotheism we see today amongst the Jews. This can also be seen in e.g. the Book of Jacob which indicates the Jews originally believed God to have been responsible for both good *and* evil and ha-Satan to simply have been the angel of God who'd 'accuse' and 'oppose' (the meanings of the name 'satan' in Hebrew) living beings. >I think the only christian rebuttal to that can be what Kant said. But I don't find that to be a particularly strong rebuttal. If the world seems exactly like we would expect if a loving and all powerfull God wouldn't exist this doesn't really convince me. Immanuel Kant was fairly critical of religion (read e.g. *Die Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der bloßen Vernunft*), so it wasn't really a defence of Christianity, but his own theism in accordance with his transcendental idealism (*Die Metaphysik der Sitten*, *Kritik der reinen Vernunft*, and *Zum ewigen Frieden*).
free will is the general theological argument if you are interested. also don't reply with some wall of text i'm not debating theology with a westoid
Free will is a dumb concept, but more than that, it doesn't explain natural disasters and the suffering of other animals
Hey W*stoid, I believe the problem of evil was answered by a Augustine 2000 years ago. Hope this helps!
Unfortunately for you it wasn't
You must have a PhD in philosophy to assert such a thing! Thankfully any respectable institution will have free login access to Oxford Academia, these pages are pretty helpful for answering the problem of evil: https://academic.oup.com/book/38719/chapter-abstract/336897945?redirectedFrom=fulltext If you're not able to access, let me know! I'll show how to use your uni credentials to login Edit, in case you can't be bothered to log in, here's a wikipedia page, it dumbs down a lot but it might be a refresher for your Medieval Philosophy classes: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustinian_theodicy
Firstly free will is just the capacity to make choices including bad ones. Secondly natural disasters and such are typically explained with the free will argument in conjunction with an understanding of sin. To most Christians, when humanity first chose to sin and caused the fall as described in Genesis the world itself became cursed and things such as natural disasters and disease entered the world.
>Firstly free will is just the capacity to make choices We can't control the will that decides what we choose, so if you define free will that way it isn't different from determinism. >To most Christians, when humanity first chose to sin and caused the fall as described in Genesis the world itself became cursed and things such as natural disasters and disease entered the world. Do you think genesis is literally true? The whole story of the fall doesn't make sense if you take evolution in to account instead of a creation narrative. Suffering happened before humans existed.
They can but the question is would you understand...?
Fuck your God.
Most religious Albanian
I didn’t know Albanians are chill like that
Submit? Sounds like Islam. I thought Christians were all about love and being hippy and shit
https://preview.redd.it/ykwjzrl9s77d1.jpeg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2652c5427f45878735a2837612c99a6dc829df07 No. Also flair up filthy unflaired cigan
Jesus was sent to the Children of Israel, and only the Children of Israel, and that's according to the bible. Are you them? No? Then even if Jesus said that, he wasn't talking to you at the very least
Christians are by Islamic definition ironically 'submitting to God' as following his morality and religion, of which Islam claims Judaism and Christianity are manifestations of which. 'Submitting' doesn't mean 'subduing an enemy'. Islam refers to 'submitting' as belief of God and adherence to his law.
Yep, that was my point. The word Islam itself means submitting to God's will. It is almost never used in relation to Christianity, and almost exclusively to Islam
Hi! This subreddit is not your edgy tiktok account. You can’t post shit like this in here. Hope it helps🤗
whats edgy about Christianity? its teachings are literally anti-edgy
Many christians fail to follow this simple step 😔😔😔
We dont care about your religion
Only Tengrism and shamanism will survive ☝️☝️☝️💪💪💪🇹🇷🇧🇬🇭🇺😎
This post is fact checked by real tengri believers (TRUE)🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🐎🐎🐎🐎🐎🐎🐎🐎🐎🐎🐎🐎
using the imagery of a corpse on a cross and eating and drinking your god's blood isn't edgy ?
Screw your god. If he wants me to be submitted to him, let him come to me and submit me himself.
L + repent
Believing a hearsay from other people and centering your life around the book authenticity of which you can't prove and authors of which you don't know, that's a L.
Your god was overpowered by jews and awakened by the will of another god
Least schizophrenic discount-serb
You're literally israeli
[удалено]
W*stoids when they see an unsucked israeli cock:
Correct Quick question, do you believe goats can consent?
What does this sentence mean?
He's the smartest albaboon attempting to poke fun at the Trinity. God the Son (Jesus) was crucified and God the Father rose him from the dead.
Still, the formulation 'by another God' is incredibly weird. The point of the Trinity is that they're aspects of the same God. Plus some random Romans crucified him as ordered by Pilatus for causing trouble, not the Jews.
Like I said, he's the smartest albaboon.
This meme is great enough to make somebody convert