Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Do you think God is benevolent and do incels have any moral burden?

The god you're thinking of is the father god of the jews specifically: they have colonized the planet and yahweh is basically the current dictator that rules over us as a sort of demiurge figure (most likely, moloch and ba'al are like his servants or angels, and jesus is a demiruge or a popular disguise used by archons —also called angels—when interacting with gentiles). The world is under a colonial dictatorship of the jew.
 
We have no obligation to (((their))) god, and even if life was one big game of sims, the player clearly doesn't like us or think clearly.
 
The god you're thinking of is the father god of the jews specifically: they have colonized the planet and yahweh is basically the current dictator that rules over us as a sort of demiurge figure (most likely, moloch and ba'al are like his servants or angels, and jesus is a demiruge or a popular disguise used by archons —also called angels—when interacting with gentiles). The world is under a colonial dictatorship of the jew.
I agree on Yahweh being dictator that overthrown older deities
 
We have no obligation to (((their))) god, and even if life was one big game of sims, the player clearly doesn't like us or think clearly.
We need to determine whether El/Yahweh is true God, I am seeking the answer

By true God I mean True Creator, and True Controller
 
What is your view on benevolence of God? I think God cursed us and it may be true, but then should we expect heaven in afterlife or should we expect hell.

If everything is predestined then we are destined to play role of bad guys like satan and his demons that are seen as ugly, undesirable and evil by any god-loving man, and we exist only as contrast to people that are desirable in eyes of God.

But if there is no predestination and every person has free will then biological and political choices of our ancestors shaped us so God should reward us as compensation because we were never born free and all evil we make doesn't burden us morally.

Also God doesn't really promise anything, it seems he is malevolent demiurge because look, El, Yahweh is one of many Israelite deities worshipped, like Baal Hadad, Baal Hadad is God of male fertility, he gave people rain, crops, he gave men strength and made sex slaves out of foids, Baal even raped some foids himself. But our God never listens to prayers, he tests people endlessly, promises nothing but hell and damnation, wants people to be poor, wants men to be weak.


How would you morally justify it?

I know most mainstream view is that earthly pleasures are deceiving, but isn't it what actual demiurge would say to keep people miserable their whole life and then trap them in hell anyway? Wouldn't the true God give people what they want and give them heaven anyway? Why is there this moral ambiguity in religion that God who gives people everything must be evil and God that harms people must give them heaven as compensation.
God didn't make you ugly, your ugliness is just a ailment and bad luck
 
We need to determine whether El/Yahweh is true God, I am seeking the answer

By true God I mean True Creator, and True Controller
I don't think there's a creator: it's just the forces of logic and chaos that serve as the source and unbreakable rules of reality. One philosopher called it the will to life.
 
I don't think there's a creator: it's just the forces of logic and chaos that serve as the source and unbreakable rules of reality. One philosopher called it the will to life.
Someone has written logic, maths, physics and natural law
 
Someone has written logic, maths, physics and natural law
If you lift two fingers, and lift two more fingers, that makes four, and even if god existed, he would only be able to add or subtract fingers, not change how theu operate on a fundamental level.
 
If you lift two fingers, and lift two more fingers, that makes four, and even if god existed, he would only be able to add or subtract fingers, not change how theu operate on a fundamental level.
Who decided it’s 4 huh
 
God benevolent? Nigga, have you EVER watched a wildlife documentary?
 
Humans. Numbers are an abstraction made by humans.
Weird thing to say for a mathematician, if it was abstraction none of things you do would work
 
Who says brutality is evil
Oh yeah, suffering is not bad. Why are you here again?

I guess you like being an incel then. Can't take you seriousely, man.
 
What is your view on benevolence of God? I think God cursed us and it may be true, but then should we expect heaven in afterlife or should we expect hell.

If everything is predestined then we are destined to play role of bad guys like satan and his demons that are seen as ugly, undesirable and evil by any god-loving man, and we exist only as contrast to people that are desirable in eyes of God.

But if there is no predestination and every person has free will then biological and political choices of our ancestors shaped us so God should reward us as compensation because we were never born free and all evil we make doesn't burden us morally.

Also God doesn't really promise anything, it seems he is malevolent demiurge because look, El, Yahweh is one of many Israelite deities worshipped, like Baal Hadad, Baal Hadad is God of male fertility, he gave people rain, crops, he gave men strength and made sex slaves out of foids, Baal even raped some foids himself. But our God never listens to prayers, he tests people endlessly, promises nothing but hell and damnation, wants people to be poor, wants men to be weak.


How would you morally justify it?

I know most mainstream view is that earthly pleasures are deceiving, but isn't it what actual demiurge would say to keep people miserable their whole life and then trap them in hell anyway? Wouldn't the true God give people what they want and give them heaven anyway? Why is there this moral ambiguity in religion that God who gives people everything must be evil and God that harms people must give them heaven as compensation.
I think he doesn't know anything because he isn't a conscious being.
 
Oh yeah, suffering is not bad. Why are you here again?

I guess you like being an incel then. Can't take you seriousely, man.
Who said me being an incel is evil for grand scheme of things, it’s just evil for me, maybe not to the world, maybe we are here because our suffering is not seen as evil by the word but rather moral world wants us to suffer
 
Weird thing to say for a mathematician, if it was abstraction none of things you do would work
I don't think I made myself clear regarding the concept of abstraction.

Numbers are an abstraction for things. 2 is not a thing in the phenomenal world. However, there can be 2 things, s.a. 2 niggers, 2 foids, etc. When you consider collections of the same number of things, it doesn't matter what those things are, the number of those things is the same, is what's important. You then abstract from the phenomenal world and invent the numbers 1, 2, etc.

Historically these weren't the first counting system, the first systems were the Sumerian/Babylonian ones using their writing system (idk the English word for it I'm sorry) and the Egyptian one using hieroglyphics. Proto-Old Japanese probably had an oral counting system of their own but writing was only imported through the Korean peninsula in roughly 500 AD, and the Old Chinese system can be hypothesized to be the one Japan adopted through their writing (with some differences). Hindu-Arab counting system is just one of many but it stuck around cuz it was imported into Europe, and that is what is used in countries around the world, supplanting their own counting system, for things like mathematics and prices (arguably easier to write 369 than 三百六十九 on keyboards and by hand).

The basic counting level of abstraction I described earlier is found very clearly in languages such as Chinese and Japanese where every time you want to enumerate something, you have to use a counter word. This is partially true in English and other languages too, for instance considering Japanese, "two people" = 「二人」. However, in English you can omit the counter word when it's clear by context, for instance: "How many people were there?" "Two" but in Japanese you can't drop it neither in formal nor in informal speech: 「何人が居ましたか」「二人です」. Taking this further, in English you can omit the counter word from the interrogative adjective, rendering it a pronoun effectively, but you cannot do that in Japanese; consider the following:

"There sure were a lot of people there."
"How many?"
"Two thousand"

vs

「あそこに、人がたくさん居ましたね」
「何人ですか」
「二千人です」

This sort of phenomenal counting vs noumenal counting is what I referred to as "abstraction".

Regarding what you said next, mathematics does not have to have a referent in the phenomenal world. I could write in some level of detail about it but I do not know if you'd be interested in reading it. All I'll say is mathematics works because of the self-evident nature of the axioms and the nature of mathematical logic.
 
I don't think I made myself clear regarding the concept of abstraction.

Numbers are an abstraction for things. 2 is not a thing in the phenomenal world. However, there can be 2 things, s.a. 2 niggers, 2 foids, etc. When you consider collections of the same number of things, it doesn't matter what those things are, the number of those things is the same, is what's important. You then abstract from the phenomenal world and invent the numbers 1, 2, etc.

Historically these weren't the first counting system, the first systems were the Sumerian/Babylonian ones using their writing system (idk the English word for it I'm sorry) and the Egyptian one using hieroglyphics. Proto-Old Japanese probably had an oral counting system of their own but writing was only imported through the Korean peninsula in roughly 500 AD, and the Old Chinese system can be hypothesized to be the one Japan adopted through their writing (with some differences). Hindu-Arab counting system is just one of many but it stuck around cuz it was imported into Europe, and that is what is used in countries around the world, supplanting their own counting system, for things like mathematics and prices (arguably easier to write 369 than 三百六十九 on keyboards and by hand).

The basic counting level of abstraction I described earlier is found very clearly in languages such as Chinese and Japanese where every time you want to enumerate something, you have to use a counter word. This is partially true in English and other languages too, for instance considering Japanese, "two people" = 「二人」. However, in English you can omit the counter word when it's clear by context, for instance: "How many people were there?" "Two" but in Japanese you can't drop it neither in formal nor in informal speech: 「何人が居ましたか」「二人です」. Taking this further, in English you can omit the counter word from the interrogative adjective, rendering it a pronoun effectively, but you cannot do that in Japanese; consider the following:

"There sure were a lot of people there."
"How many?"
"Two thousand"

vs

「あそこに、人がたくさん居ましたね」
「何人ですか」
「二千人です」

This sort of phenomenal counting vs noumenal counting is what I referred to as "abstraction".

Regarding what you said next, mathematics does not have to have a referent in the phenomenal world. I could write in some level of detail about it but I do not know if you'd be interested in reading it. All I'll say is mathematics works because of the self-evident nature of the axioms and the nature of mathematical logic.
ALL counting systems describe the same functional reality, are you saying physics that keep airplanes flying are a construct? No. Our method of describing them is constructed but I am talking about unchangeable laws of nature
 
Also, disregarded 99% of the answer's content award
 
I'm going to put you on ignore because you do not have the brain capacity to argue a point without resorting to buzzwords
You give up because I won
 
What is your view on benevolence of God? I think God cursed us and it may be true, but then should we expect heaven in afterlife or should we expect hell.

If everything is predestined then we are destined to play role of bad guys like satan and his demons that are seen as ugly, undesirable and evil by any god-loving man, and we exist only as contrast to people that are desirable in eyes of God.

But if there is no predestination and every person has free will then biological and political choices of our ancestors shaped us so God should reward us as compensation because we were never born free and all evil we make doesn't burden us morally.

Also God doesn't really promise anything, it seems he is malevolent demiurge because look, El, Yahweh is one of many Israelite deities worshipped, like Baal Hadad, Baal Hadad is God of male fertility, he gave people rain, crops, he gave men strength and made sex slaves out of foids, Baal even raped some foids himself. But our God never listens to prayers, he tests people endlessly, promises nothing but hell and damnation, wants people to be poor, wants men to be weak.


How would you morally justify it?

I know most mainstream view is that earthly pleasures are deceiving, but isn't it what actual demiurge would say to keep people miserable their whole life and then trap them in hell anyway? Wouldn't the true God give people what they want and give them heaven anyway? Why is there this moral ambiguity in religion that God who gives people everything must be evil and God that harms people must give them heaven as compensation.
All humans are cursed for generational sin and our own sin. Jesus was cursed when he hung on the tree so we could be free of the curse and have the blessing.
 
All humans are cursed for generational sin and our own sin. Jesus was cursed when he hung on the tree so we could be free of the curse and have the blessing.
That is true, everyone suffers, but why am I more cursed than others, am I not from the same Adam as them, well, and when it comes to Jesus why can’t he save me right now? Why can he save me only after I stop caring for any of my self-preservation instincts, I am not a sinner, I got no guilt, I’m a victim, I do not feel any single stain on my character
 
That is true, everyone suffers, but why am I more cursed than others, am I not from the same Adam as them, well, and when it comes to Jesus why can’t he save me right now? Why can he save me only after I stop caring for any of my self-preservation instincts, I am not a sinner, I got no guilt, I’m a victim, I do not feel any single stain on my character
I did not say you were more cursed than others. But you are also not better than others , so Christ is true for all.
 
I did not say you were more cursed than others. But you are also not better than others , so Christ is true for all.
I mean not me per se, most of us are more cursed than rest of society, so, it leads to legal breach of covenant by the elohim because how can I be part of covenant if I was born crooked, not able to follow it
 
I mean not me per se, most of us are more cursed than rest of society, so, it leads to legal breach of covenant by the elohim because how can I be part of covenant if I was born crooked, not able to follow it
That is precisely why Jesus because no human could ever earn salvation.

Also you may not be more cursed than any average person. More cursed in social but not so in other things . It does not matter Jesus died for who would have faith in him.
 
That is precisely why Jesus because no human could ever earn salvation.

Also you may not be more cursed than any average person. More cursed in social but not so in other things . It does not matter Jesus died for who would have faith in him.
Tell him I will have faith if I get 1 million dollars
 
I believe before you are even born, or conceived, or before humanity was even existed, some of us were Blessed, and others were Cursed. Even if God were to throw a trillion infants into Hellfire, He would still be Just, because He does not require our external approval to be such.

So yes, some of us are damned and cursed, both in this life and the next, but some of us are blessed even if it does not appear as such now.
 
Well I was baptized but didn’t have confirmation
You do not need either of those .

" Confess that you are a sinner and that Jesus is Lord and rose from the dead and believe in your heart it is true.

You do not need Baptism or confirmation, Confess Jesus as Lord.

You can get total full baptism later but Confess Jesus now.
 
You do not need either of those .

" Confess that you are a sinner and that Jesus is Lord and rose from the dead and believe in your heart it is true.

You do not need Baptism or confirmation, Confess Jesus as Lord.

You can get total full baptism later but Confess Jesus now.
I cannot feel it, and I do not want to confess what I do not believe is true in my case, I know it helped some people tho
 
I cannot feel it, and I do not want to confess what I do not believe is true in my case, I know it helped some people tho
Faith comes hearing , keep saying Jesus outloud until do believe. Do not wait for the heart to change to mouth , let the mouth change the heart and it will.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top