The better question to ask is why is the accompanying photo of a woman pointing 4 fingers at me?
She is demonstrating that she is not an AI generated image.
Obviously, she was in the military and is not allowed to point, and must use the knife hand maneuver.
Nobody knows but it’s provocative. It gets the people going.
She’s a graduate of the Tony Robbins School Of Public Speaking.
I mean this is a relatively easy question to answer. God is a cruel dictator. It doesn’t really speak to if God can do those things, or if God is real. Only to God’s character.
if there was a god, then humans would be to him as lab rats to humans - except with more power and a greater degree of control.
If humans starve, torture, maim, infect, lobotomise, test bioweapons on the lab rats that they have near-godlike power over; then why expect elsewise from their god.
did you ever watch humans playing grand theft auto?
deleted by creator
The Old Testament God is clearly a harsh parent that will ask you to do inconsiderable things to prove your loyalty, and will just destroy whatever doesn’t fit his vision. He is not the good guy, nor the bad guy I guess. There’s no Hell or Satan in OT, right?
Anyway, I can only imagine a teenage having a fit that his terrarium’s humans aren’t behaving like he want them to, then growing out of his tantrums within a few years.
Yes, Satan appears as the snake in Genesis, goes up to God and cons him into a bet that Job will disavow God if everything is ripped away and God goes along with it. Hell, I believe is referenced a few times as Sheol. In the NT, Hades appears as well as the lake of fire and the place where there’s gnawing and nashing of teeth.
God does open up the earth and swallow nonbelievers in the OT, along with a bunch of other cruel shit, but I don’t recall a place of eternal torment in the OT.
I don’t believe there is any part that says the serpent is supposed to be Satan
Oh that’s right. It’s in Revelation (new testament) that describes Satan as the serpent of old, relating back to Genesis.
Or just turn them to dust without destroying everything with a flood…
That would be a hand out, which is socialism. You wouldn’t want god to be a filthy socialist now, would you? Pull yourself up by your bootstraps.
The demiurge hates us. That’s why.
God is the Universe, and he loves us. He does provide, but he isn’t a being or person, he doesn’t act like that.
Everything that happens is just part of his dream.
I will answer this question the same way i always answer these “why doesnt god do this” questions.
We just dont know. Maybe we are misinterpreting what god is supposed to be. Maybe god exists in a form we will never be able comprehend. Maybe god is the weak nuclear force holding all of everything together where inorganic is just as precious as organic. Maybe god is an nth dimensional being where basically nothing matters and things are created and destroyed on accident and we worship god for having such abilities. Maybe we are microscopic to god in the same way we treat bacteria. There are attempts to find god but maybe it will bever be fruitful. Maybe if we do discover evidence of god some day and it will bring the destruction of the universe itself.
Its all just games we tell ourselves to feel like someone is in control. The idea of atheism is just as pointless as theism. Its like being a hater just because you want to be a hater.
It may also be the case that there is no god. I have yet to see sufficient evidence supporting the existence of one.
The idea of atheism is just as pointless as theism. Its[sic] like being a hater just because you want to be a hater.
The analogy suggests there is no reason for being atheistic–for not believing in things for which no good evidence exists.
If your default position is to believe in things without evidence, one would have to somehow believe everything to be logically consistent. But believing everything means believing contradictory things which is also logically inconsistent. So one has to arbitrarily choose what to believe despite having no reason to do so or realize that believing in things with no supporting evidence isn’t rational.
It’s just a rhetorical question
