>>22217988free will is still free will if you only can choose among good things, to say that free will is only about good and evil is a false dichotomy. but if that's not what you're implying, then it's arbitrary in the sense that it's subjective to god. there's no objective reasoning as to why the ancient israelites couldn't eat crawfish or mix different kinds of fabrics, it's just god feeling like making things this way. if god truly only wanted a perfectly good world, he would have made it that way. but because he created the opportunity for evil to exist and allowed that evil to persists, this means he wanted evil to exist when it never had to. either god is evil, or god loves evil. it'd make sense for an all-loving god to love being evil, after all, especially considering the numerous genocides that he commands and commits.
>>22217990the old testament and new testament is literally a case of god changing his doctrines to his believers. unless you believe paul is full of shit when he said that the law is bad? oh wait, jesus said he came to fulfill the law, that's just another huge self-contradiction that shatters your religion even more. i won't do the mental gymnastics you do to believe in this shit, no thank you
>Like who?i was having fun doing rhetoric, but if you really want to know, god is deistic AT BEST. i don't really care about if he exists or not, but i do care when christians knock on my door and tell me to believe in their theistic god that i'm supposed to be able to see but he perfectly hides himself. again, god's thumbprint is nowhere to be seen, we can only speculate that it's in our gaps of knowledge. it's just safer to assume god doesn't care about us, or he doesn't exist. but even safer would be to not assume anything.
>"wahhhh I don't want free will!" "waahhhh I don't want there to consequences for my actions"there are consequences for my actions already, or if there aren't then humanity should get better at giving consequences.
