/siberia/ - Off-topic

Epicurus was the GOAT

>>818932
Yes; he was certainly superior to the Academics.
I like to see the long line of ethics from atomists like Democritus ("the laughing philosopher") who saw that happiness was achieved by the passivity of attachment, the same as Lao Tzu writes, and after him is Socrates, who in Xenophon's "Economist" tells us that wealth is within, not without. Plato brings perversion in his Republic, which are improved in Lysis, but not totally. Aristotle improves upon him by situating Friendship as the greatest form of love, and thus of politics. Epicurus finally improves upon Aristotle by not simply viewing politics as a matter of equitable redistribution between friends, but a practical life of communal living. Epicurus also threw off all of the superstitions in his culture. Unfortunately, the Epicureans were marginalised during the world-historical transition from Greece to Rome, seen in the rise of Stoicism, which was also materialist, but inhabited the "unhappy consciousness" of self-denial. Epicurus as a Hedonist did not deny pleasure, but allowed it to arrive from the lack of suffering. Today, this is called "negative utilitarianism" and is a wise ethos to abide by. It should also be said that the Epicureans faced harsh persecutions by the Christians as they rose in prominance, and of course, Christianity in its pretensions of brotherly love only provides the forced, erotic "love" of rape, the same way God raped Mary in her carrying of Jesus.

You can read an account of Epicureans and Stoics conversing with Paul. The Pagans are very tolerant while Paul is steadfast (Acts 17):
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2017%3A18-34&version=NIV

Since we're on the topic of religion in general, I would see the act of faith as a ransom; it is entirely coercive and threatening, so fails to be voluntary and virtuous. If the reason why we should believe in God is so that he doesn't hurt us, the test of faith is an act of demoralisation. It confounds reason itself. I would exactly compare it to the horrors of O'Brien and Winston in 1984 - the inner life of man is sought to be captured by brute power. Brute power is a denial of reality, since it denies the cooperation of forces, in favour of itself. Tension yields its friction, and this is the axis of faith, which stands on grounds of a threat. Religious forgiveness operates in a similarly brutal fashion, where you are expected to love your worldly and spiritual abuser, and so it all acts as a reinforcement of Stockholm Syndrome. If one must turn the other cheek, one sacrifices his own power to another. No one thus gains except the abuser. Religion operates by this cultish violence. This is why all rational theists have always revised the doctrines of their day. Reason precedes faith, and so determines it in the manner by which it may be understood. As Luther says, reason is the enemy of faith - but only the dull faith of the ignorant masses (for context, billions of people believe in the literal Abrahamic creed).

Good and evil are both not real. Read the heraclitus fragments.

>>818956
Heraclitus affirms the Good, and evil is inscribed into the Good as its opposite. I'm afraid that you do not know what you're talking about. Goodness is simply in the nature of things, whilst evil is corruption. That's why blindness is a negation of the human form, rather than an addition to it. Darkness is a shadow, and so is a result of blocking light, not a result of its own generation. Evil is a perversion of Truth. Thus, it is written, God deceives men and leads them to their ruin. If God was Truthful, there could be no faith. All faith is built on lies.

>>818967
Rare gigachad

>God/A Big Bang of Nothing created the universe
>We're supposed to believe the universe hasn't always existed
Have any philosophers ever touched on this conundrum?

Wait didn't he give that blind dude the ability to see later after that verse?

>>818999
The big bang is about the massive expansion of mass, not ex nihilo creation of everything, all the materials to create the universe were just concentrated in one place (and we know it still expands and even accelerates to this day)

>>819011
Yes, but that's the point.
If I stab you and then take you to the hospital, I save your life, but I am also the one who threatened your life. It's like when mobsters request payment for protection; that is, protection from themselves. If it were the case that God cures all people in real life, there would at least be some redemption to it, but if Jesus came to heal the sick, and we still have the sick, then nothing is actually resolved. Problems multiply.
>>819005
Muh mysterious ways?
>>818999
Plato in Timaeus states that matter has always existed, God just put it into proper order to give us time. This was the classical view of things, as seen in Ovid's Metamorphosis also. Aristotle directly states a belief in an eternal universe, the same as Engels in his Dialectics of Nature.
>>819039
Thus begs the question, why was matter in a singularity beforehand? Theories of the "Big Crunch" used be hypothesised, but have since been abandoned. Other ideas of the Big Bang being a White Hole also satisfy the question, but it has no proof. I would say the Big Crunch is the classical view; that the lifespan of the universe means it lives and dies in cycles, like the seasons, and so stretching leads to contraction.

God allows for those situations in order to test the reactions of everyone around. If a wheelchair bound cripple is not supported then God will punish everyone who ignored and did not help that person. This is just because there is no other rational way to determine the virtue of a human being than by placing them in situations where they have the option to help or ignore people. The victim is going to heaven anyways what God is concerned about is whether anyone will help that person.

>>819059
>Virtue
Good works are as FILTHY RAGS before the Lord, let it be known. God does not care aboit good works, for as Christ says, only God is good. By Sola Fide is man justified, as we see with the thief on the cross. God does not care about charity, but only submission. To be saved you must plead before a master, for as Paul writes, you either a SLAVE to sin or a SLAVE to righteousness. And whence cometh the salvation of the lame? If a cripple does not profess his faith he will be damned. So, it is not a test of faith to be GOOD, but only to be submissive.

>>819080
>Isaiah 55:8
<For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2055%3A8-9&version=NIV
Of course, God decided that we should never be able to know him.

>>819090
Good quote - this is why the protestants are at least correct that a God of special revelation cannot be rationally or philosophically known. It is purely a posteriori, which is why John Locke also promoted the idea of a blank slate, since he wanted to justify morality on the basis of a special Christian education, rather than inherent ideas in humanity. You see this same stuff in jurisprudence, where people claim for example, that the law is based on the Ten Commandments, when it just isn't. All human civilisation spontaneously construct laws against murder, theft and rape, because that is in the nature of the law itself. The appeal to special revelation thus means denying human reason.

Aaalso known as the jellyfish.

>>819299
I didnt make these. Scumbags did

>>818931
if god existed, it would be necessary to abolish them

>>819301
Well, the real hope would be a Gnostic conclusion, that a "good" God is superior to the "evil" God. It's clear that most religions worship the evil God.

>>819060
>this is the brain of amerifats on religion
yeah yeah sure bud actions don't matter that's why jesus said the rich man goes to heaven for not helping poor lazarus

>>819308
How was the thief on the cross saved? Tell me.

>>819059
then he is not all knowing

>>819310
Maybe its just presumptive?

>>819310
He is all knowing but he is also fair and if he just decided everything straight from your birth you would try to argue that you would have done things differently so he gives you a chance to prove Him right or wrong so you can't lawyer your way out of judgement (He will always be right anyways).

>>819309
Genuine remorse for his crimes, admitting he was wrong, and begging for forgiveness. Begging and confessing are also actions.

>>819320
>begging
But that is my point.
The thief did not do anything good; he only begged for mercy.
So, he is saved by grace through faith, alone. There is nothing else.
If we then take the atheist who says "I did good things, I don't need to beg for mercy from God", why would God punish them? Why would good people go to Hell? Can this be answered without contradiction?

>>819322
>If we then take the atheist who says "I did good things, I don't need to beg for mercy from God", why would God punish them? Why would good people go to Hell? Can this be answered without contradiction?
I would like to point out that pretty much all the ecelebrity "New Atheists", from Sam Harris to Richard Dawkins to Christopher Hitchens, have all been found to have terrible views outside of their religious criticisms. Christopher was a cheerleader for the Iraq War. Harris is a committed Zionist, and Dawkins supported the Afghan war. Atheist pundits like Bill Maher even agitate against basic bitch socdems like Mamdani. I don't think a single popular atheist in our modern times, at least in the West, has voraciously pushed an "anti Western imperialist" line. Hillary Clinton famously blocked raising Haiti's minimum wage but none of these people would dare to criticize her or to torch the Dems for financial or military imperialism. My answer would be that God would judge them by their own moral standards and they would be found lacking according to their own judgements. You can't argue for a rational secular society while ignoring how your country is sitting on top of a mountain of corpses, so they could all easily be morally condemned for their imperialism even without bringing in a Christian or Jesus faith test.

>>819326
>God would judge them by their own moral standards
This is absolute bullshit
The Law of God is not relative to man's ignorance, is it?
>You can't argue for a rational secular society
Neither can you, since permitting evil makes you evil.
You just sound like you have no idea what you actually believe, sorry.

>>819346
Ignorance as well as personal morality as well as material conditions are all factors God calculates in judgement. Otherwise people would be able to accuse God of not being fair.

Matthew 7:2 (NASB)
<For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you

Sure sounds like Jesus is going to apply your own moral standards to your life as part of the judgement process, in order to show you how you've fallen flat.

Ignorance is also a mitigating factor:

Jonah 4:7
<Should I not have compassion on Nineveh, the great city in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know the difference between their right and left hand, as well as many animals?

Nineveh was the capital of the pagan and militarist Assyrian Empire which did not worship God, but was given a second chance anyways due to a display of repentance.

There is also the story of Lot in Genesis. Two angels visit his hometown and his town tries to rape the new arrivals. Lot blocks them from this action and offers up his daughters instead. This is utterly repugnant from a modern perspective, but God earlier promised Abraham to spare anyone in Lot's town who was "righteous". Was Lot righteous? Not by modern standards. However by the standards of where he was living, which was apparently Gang Rape Central, his family was spared because he at least slightly protested in comparison to everyone else in his area who went along with the attempted rape. Was that not God showing lenience due to Lot's material conditions and where he grew up? Of course it was.

>permitting evil makes you evil
This is illogical. In a formal logic chain, you are essentially claiming "permitting x makes you x". Put another way, with that same logic you could claim that permitting fat people to exist makes you fat. No it doesn't. The presence of evil does not make your individual self evil any more than the presence of fat people makes yourself fat, and the same goes for God. Allowing something to exist is never the same as embodying that same thing. Furthermore, if Christianity is accepted as truth, that makes the Garden of Eden origin true, which outright states that it wasn't God that released evil but Humanity itself.

>>819357
>Ignorance as well as personal morality as well as material conditions are all factors God calculates in judgement.
If that's the case, then the Ten Commandments, or the Law of the Prophets, or the Sermon on the Mount don't matter. Why would Jesus preach to people if God didn't care about people's faith? Contradiction.
>Otherwise people would be able to accuse God of not being fair.
God isn't fair. That's the point.
You rely on your own understanding and project that on God.
You are an idolator.
>Jesus is going to apply your own moral standards
But I thought the Law was written on our hearts?
You can't invent your own moral faculty. It must abide by reason.
Jesus is simply saying to not be a hypocrite. Nothing more.
God is a hypocrite, of course, since he kills and rapes people.
>Was that not God showing lenience due to Lot's material conditions and where he grew up?
No, God was allowing Lot to have sex with his daughters after his wife is killed for looking at bright lights. If morality is relative, then what is the meaning of the Levitical Law or Ten Commandments? The Law does not change, does it?
>This is illogical
How? If you live in a sinful society you should exile yourself like the Jews and Christians have in history. Choosing to live in sin makes you guilty of the same thing. Jesus had no bed to rest upon.
>Allowing something to exist is never the same as embodying that same thing
If you could stop a rape but choose not to, are you guilty? Yes.
It's called the bystander effect. The profane multitude abides by it.
>it wasn't God that released evil but Humanity itself.
Where does it say that humanity "released" evil? Adam and Eve gain "knowledge of good and evil", which means evil preceded them. God creates evil. Perhaps you never read my original post (Isaiah 45:7):
<I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah%2045%3A7&version=KJV
Your alternative suggests that human beings eating a fruit caused the whole world to be cursed. Man doesn't set the curse; God does. Is God not all powerful, after all? God knew the serpent was in the garden. God makes deals with the devil all the time, like in the Book of Job. And what does Job say? God is unjust. God replies 'might makes right.' God is a tyrant. God is unjust. God is unfair. That is the point.

>>819358
>Why would Jesus preach to people if God didn't care about people's faith? Contradiction.
God does care, but we were discussing the specifics of judgement. Obviously someone who grows up in, say, Saudi Arabia, is going to find it much harder to convert than someone who grows up in, say, the American South. In order for God to be Just, he must have a method of weighing all those who did not have access to Bibles or who were never preached to. It's essentially your "atheist who did nothing wrong" argument extrapolated to the entire world. So obviously God takes all this into account.

Matthew 10:14-15 (NIV)
<If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, leave that home or town and shake the dust off your feet. Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

Why is Jesus saying punishment will be lighter on Sodom and Gomorrah? Because Sodom and Gomorrah never had His disciples preaching to those towns. This is Jesus outright admitting that there will different degrees of punishment varying based on how much people knew of the truth. It's Jesus stating that he takes the material conditions of each civilization into account. What else is the alternative you propose? By the standards of 21st century morality, the Roman Empire is a barbaric imperialist slave-owning empire that should be destroyed and yet Jesus didn't go around saying everyone there should die. A flat "one size fits all" judgement would privilege all the newer generations of humanity compared to the older generations. That's not right or fair, and Jesus being truly good points out that there are different standards that will be applied.
>God isn't fair. That's the point
That is your argument, which you have yet to prove. So far I think I've proven I have a better grasp on this theology than you do, so I'm inclined to think my argument for God being fair is better.

>God is a hypocrite, of course, since he kills and rapes people.
Hold on a second. You attack God for not punishing evil instantaneously, and then you also accuse him of being evil in the times (I'm guessing the Old Testament stories) where he takes a more active presence and does kill evildoers. You can't have it both ways. Your arguments are hypocritical themselves.

>If morality is relative, then what is the meaning of the Levitical Law or Ten Commandments? The Law does not change, does it?

In the Law, Moses permits Divorce. By the time Jesus appears, Jesus claims all divorce, with the exception of when someone has been cheated on, is disallowed. So yes it is relative to the time period and to human knowledge. God expects more from people who have a better understanding of morality.

Luke 12:47-48
<The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. <But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

I find it funny that any Marxist would struggle so hard to accept this basic theological point. From my pov, Marxists should find this the easiest point to grasp and should be ahead of all other political factions in understanding Christianity. After all, didn't Marx himself support the American Revolution despite it being led by slave-owners? Marx judged people based on the time period and their knowledge and didn't try to apply insanely exacting future moral standards upon those people. God does the same.

>Choosing to live in sin makes you guilty of the same thing
Jesus never sinned despite living amongst sinners. Your argument is again illogical. It'd be like saying an American anti war protestor who tried to break into a weapons factory to sabotage it is actually just as guilty as a fox news boomer who gleefully cheered on the Iran War. Tbh this is the struggle I have debating atheists it's like they turn off their brains as soon as religious topics come up and they say ridiculous stuff they know is wrong that they would never say in other contexts.

>If you could stop a rape but choose not to, are you guilty? Yes.

Ok and who chose to rape in the first place? Not God, but the rapist. The source of the crime is always the perpetrator. You are blaming God for something He didn't even do. That's pretty silly don't you think? And if he struck down the rapist before he could even walk, you would accuse God of being a murderer, as you already previously have. It sounds less like you have an intellectual argument against God and more like you're just throwing random accusations against God to try and see what can stick.

>God is a tyrant. God is unjust. God is unfair. That is the point.
What do you mean by "tyrant"? Tyrant implies oppression. But God is not oppressing you. He is not holding a gun to your head every day demanding you follow Jesus. You are allowed to freely believe or disbelieve and to live your life the way you want to. That is not tyranny that is freedom. You can live your entire life hating God, hell you can even join Satanist groups like O9A. Is God going to stop you? No. To call this "tyranny" is so infantile that it devalues the word altogether. As for God being unjust or unfair again you have yet to prove it.

>>819363
>God does care
If God cares, why would he create the problem to begin with?
He doesn't care. He has predestined Hell for unbelievers.
>atheist who did nothing wrong
So is it grace through faith, or is it good works which saves people?
You aren't making sense. If good works save us, we don't need faith.
If faith saves us, good works don't count for anything.
>different degrees of punishment varying based on how much people knew of the truth
So its not just the burning lake of fire, but extra punishments too? What is the crime again? Eternal torment for not believing in an a thing without evidence? Demand proof? But tell me, do you think its fair to punish people for all eternity for anything? I don't. God does.
>What else is the alternative you propose?
I take Paul's account that the law is written on our hearts.
Moral progress doesn't exist. You apparently think the law changes.
>By the standards of 21st century morality, the Roman Empire is a barbaric imperialist slave-owning empire that should be destroyed
We are more immoral today than ever were in the past. There are no relative historical standards, only knowledge and ignorance.
>That is your argument, which you have yet to prove
You can prove it yourself - is it ever FAIR to apply infinite punishment for finite crimes?
>You attack God for not punishing evil instantaneously, and then you also accuse him of being evil
God allows all rape and murder to happen like a bystander, and actively creates it himself. God is the origin of all evil and suffering - or is he not all-powerful?
>it is relative to the time period
So morality is determined by man's ignorance and not eternal justice?
Tell me then, what EXACTLY makes things GOOD or EVIL? Opinion?
>a better understanding of morality.
If morality is understood, then it must also be misunderstood, no?
If it can be misunderstood, then morality does not change.
>Marxist
I'm not a Marxist.
>God does the same [as Marx]
Why are you once more debasing God to men? Blasphemy.
>Jesus never sinned despite living amongst sinners
Jesus got angry, so he did sin, the same way God sinned.
>You are blaming God for something He didn't even do
But he did; God creates rape, doesn't he? He is all-powerful, no?
Again, if you could stop a rape but don't, you are responsible for it.
>if he struck down the rapist before he could even walk, you would accuse God of being a murderer
When God smites children with cancer, is he stopping future rapists?
>He is not holding a gun to your head every day demanding you follow Jesus.
If you don't believe that an ancient Jewish carpenter is the creator of the universe, are you punished for all eternity? Isn't this a threat?
>that is freedom
Tell us anon, what happens after we live a life of disbelief?
>hating God
Why would I respect a being which is the cause of all suffering?
>As for God being unjust or unfair again you have yet to prove it.
Tell me why the man was born blind despite never sinning, again.

>>819365
>He doesn't care. He has predestined Hell for unbelievers.
We just spent the past few posts going over how unbelievers are not going to be thrown into Hell solely on the basis of their belief/disbelief but on a judgement by God taking multiple different factors into account, and I went to great effort citing multiple verses to bolster my argument. I'm not going to rehash and explain it all again; if you remain confused please scroll back up and read.
>So is it grace through faith, or is it good works which saves people?
Just like how there are different punishments for evildoers, there are also different rewards for the righteous. I also think I finally understand your problem. You are operating off a caricature of American Protestantism since you haven't actually read the Bible and cannot engage with the substance but are simply setting up strawmen based off popular misunderstandings promoted by American Christians (who also haven't read their Bibles).
1 Corinthians 3:11-14
<For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, their work will be shown for what it is, because the [Judgement] Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.

Faith produces good works which determine your placement in Heaven. Belief can get you through the gates but how much you actually helped others (widows, orphans, poor, sick, etc.) earns promotions. There is a hierarchy based upon the people who lived the best (humble, helping, healing, etc.) possible lives they could, who will be placed in charge over others.

>But tell me, do you think its fair to punish people for all eternity for anything? I don't. God does.

I think there are people who actually do deserve such a punishment. For example, Satan, who is explicitly named as one of the people suffering eternal punishment. How do you calculate the punishment for ruining billions upon billions of human lives? I know you'll be contrarian and try to argue that Satan doesn't deserve it but you'd just be lying to yourself. If you're honest enough to admit Satan deserves it then that's proof enough that Hell has a reason to exist. Also you're forgetting something: God is Just. He's not a human who makes mistakes or screws up a court case. So many atheist arguments take this ridiculous view of God where somehow people will end up in Hell who don't deserve to be there. Can you count in the Bible how many times people are confirmed to be going to Hell? It's only a handful. Satan. Satan's puppet Antichrist and other puppet False Prophet. The Rich Man who ignored Lazarus starving to death. And even the Rich Man's torture clearly wasn't so painful to the point that he lost the ability to speak since he could still talk and communicate to others. This is frankly a non issue that atheists just like to pretend to get mad over.
>But he did; God creates rape, doesn't he? He is all-powerful, no?
He didn't invent rape. Humans did. Again, in the Garden of Eden, there was no rape. Rape only occured after the Fall. You are constantly trying to shift blame for human actions back onto God but it just doesn't work. This is a common theme with atheists when it comes to these discussions: refusal to take responsibility. Homeless people exist in America. If you are American you are charged with feeding them and finding them shelter. Instead you get on your soapbox and complain about how God should do it instead lol. Didn't God give you hands? Didn't God bless your country with tons of natural resources? Didn't God instruct you with the mass publication of the Bible that any country treating the poor with contempt would make Him destroy the nation in question? What else do you need? And if he puppeted you and completely took over your life and forced you to help those suffering, your complaint would switch over to having no free will and being relegated to being a mindless slave. I know your type. You'll find any excuse to lash out at God and blame Him for everything. I could have been a Muslim, a Jew, a Buddhist, a Taoist, a Deist, it wouldn't matter you would simply repeat the same bullshit talking points to me. You don't actually care about Good or Evil you just don't want to be held accountable. I mean look here:
>Tell us anon, what happens after we live a life of disbelief?
I already explained you would be judged by your own personal morality and be found lacking. You blame God for suffering in the world - what have you done to alleviate it? Have you helped your family, your neighborhood, your community? God doesn't need to use your lack of belief in Him or Jesus to charge you. On the day of Judgement He will simply ask how you have spent your life to alleviate the suffering of others, since clearly you have the strong self-belief that you know better and could do better. And on that day you will be unable to justify yourself, using your own morality, without even bringing in any Christian litmus tests. Isn't that fair? I think it is. After all, God would be weighing you according to your own standard, which you clearly deem superior to His.

>>819376
>Faith produces good works
We finally get to it. If an atheist is good, does he actually have faith, even if he hasn't recognised it? Or is faith the confession of a name?
>Satan
Satan does nothing without God's permission. He works for God.
Saying Satan should be eternally punished for doing his job is insane.
>How do you calculate the punishment for ruining billions upon billions of human lives?
The only life Satan has ruined is Job's, which was by God's command. For all the rest, Satan tempts, but does not actually do anything. Satan is innocent.
>God is Just
Making sinless men blind from birth is justice, apparently.
>Can you count in the Bible how many times people are confirmed to be going to Hell?
All of those who have weeping and gnashing of teeth. All sinners:
<Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206&version=NIV
Unrepentant, practicing homosexuals at least shall be in Hell, right?
>being tortured for all eternity is a non-issue
Anon, you're in a cult and justifying undue abuses by your master.
>Rape only occured after the Fall
The Fall was caused by God cursing Adam and Eve.
Also, didn't God lie? The serpent was telling the truth.
So, it was God who was a "liar from the beginning"; the devil.
>refusal to take responsibility.
Anon, read this VERY, VERY CAREFULLY:
<As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” “Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the works of God might be displayed in him.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%209&version=NIV
Who is "responsible" for the blindness? It is not man, but God.
>You'll find any excuse to lash out at God and blame Him for everything.
The blind man was without blame but God cursed him anyway, correct?
>you just don't want to be held accountable
It's quite the opposite.
I want all people, including God, to be held accountable.
But tell me, what are my crimes which deserve Hell?
>You blame God for suffering in the world
Is God all-powerful? You keep avoiding this question. Think on it.
>God would be weighing you according to your own standard, which you clearly deem superior to His.
If any of us had God's powers, we would probably do a better job.
I am not claiming to be better; I am asking God to be better.
My good works are as filthy rags. They don't matter. His do.