Join 60,000+ Looksmaxxing Members!

Register a FREE account today to become a member. Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox.

  • DISCLAIMER: DO NOT ATTEMPT TREATMENT WITHOUT LICENCED MEDICAL CONSULTATION AND SUPERVISION

    This is a public discussion forum. The owners, staff, and users of this website ARE NOT engaged in rendering professional services to the individual reader. DO NOT use the content of this website as an alternative to personal examination and advice from licenced healthcare providers. DO NOT begin, delay, or discontinue treatments and/or exercises without licenced medical supervision. Learn more

Story God didn’t give you a test

Deleted Member 81107

Active member
Joined
Aug 18, 2025
Messages
84
Time Online
9h 27m
Reputation
188
If god is real all your life is a lie
Muh test of god. Cope. You must oblige.
God gave you primal urges but you can’t act on them. God gave you no purpose and you must act on with glee. They say god gives and gives so freely. But you suffer and suffer, oh so grimly! She says you look lovely but you cannot be with me. At the end of the day Only the honored ones can be so free. To those that don’t object share your pain with me.
 
Register to hide this ad
Religion is the result of slave mentality. It's the exact opposite of natural living because it's a revolution against it.
Especially Christianity, any religion that holds divine promises for denying earthly desires is inherently wrong.

From their perspective, God put them on the earth (which is their only guarantee) to suffer? Bullshit.
 
I disagree with this
 
Religion is the result of slave mentality. It's the exact opposite of natural living because it's a revolution against it.
Especially Christianity, any religion that holds divine promises for denying earthly desires is inherently wrong.

From their perspective, God put them on the earth (which is their only guarantee) to suffer? Bullshit.
Wow such a nuanced take. Very nice!
 
What are your views I encourage discussion?
May I share an essay by the famous philosopher Seneca? In the essay Seneca talks about this issue in great detail. My views are inspired by his after all
 
If god is real all your life is a lie
Muh test of god. Cope. You must oblige.
God gave you primal urges but you can’t act on them. God gave you no purpose and you must act on with glee. They say god gives and gives so freely. But you suffer and suffer, oh so grimly! She says you look lovely but you cannot be with me. At the end of the day Only the honored ones can be so free. To those that don’t object share your pain with me.
tldr: I can't have sex so God's fake
 
Religion is the result of slave mentality. It's the exact opposite of natural living because it's a revolution against it.
Especially Christianity, any religion that holds divine promises for denying earthly desires is inherently wrong.

From their perspective, God put them on the earth (which is their only guarantee) to suffer? Bullshit.
1. God put us on the earth out of pure charity, we didn't exist before he decided to plop us down in paradise
2. We have many guarantees, primarily the incarnation of God as Christ
3. Suffering is a result of original sin, everyone would be a pure adam if eve didn't bite the apple. (Most) Christian life is the process of theosis; doing what God wants us to (which is pure good) so that we may attain the perfection of God by becoming united with him in heaven in the body of christ. We use suffering to relate ourselves to Christ, who suffered greatly and took the burden of all of mankinds sin. But the covenant is (of course) willing, as God gave us free will, and this is good. So you need to willingly partake in the covenant of the forgiveness of sins, as for the "pleasure is king bro just be a hedonist" point, heaven is better than sex with literally any eve or stacylite on earth. 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000x better.
 
Religion is the result of slave mentality. It's the exact opposite of natural living because it's a revolution against it.
Especially Christianity, any religion that holds divine promises for denying earthly desires is inherently wrong.

From their perspective, God put them on the earth (which is their only guarantee) to suffer? Bullshit.
I think the point is that sin and hedonism and earthly desire is suffering, as opposed to living by the good books virtues, which seem intuitive and natural enough, adherence to what's moral and natural is meant to be rewarded. nature already demands you prove yourself constantly, without caring at all for you as an individual, but you don't deny its existence. so why should heaven be any less selective?
 
I really don't like the idea of worshipping a God either.
You put me here; that doesn't warrant reverence.

Organised religion is a sham, spirituality is dah way.
You should read plato on the natural conception of God. By all facets of logic he must be the one uncreated who created all, meaning he is omnipotent and omnipresent, below none. All things have been created by Him, including the objective moral goods and bads, which are perfect and immaculate in nature, as everything God does is, because he is perfect. He brought us into this world out of pure infinite grace.
 
I think the point is that sin and hedonism and earthly desire is suffering, as opposed to living by the good books virtues, which seem intuitive and natural enough, adherence to what's moral and natural is meant to be rewarded. nature already demands you prove yourself constantly, without caring at all for you as an individual, but you don't deny its existence. so why should heaven be any less selective?
it isn't suffering in the moment, but it (usually) leads to suffering. And at the end of it all, theres the eternal suffering brought on by rejecting Gods covenant and willingly throwing yourself down there, which is a pretty good motivation if you don't buy the pure good infinite love angle.
 
Sure I’ll read
‘Why do many things turn out badly for good men? Why, no evil can befall a good man; contraries cannot combine. Just as so many rivers, so many showers of rain from the clouds, such a number of medicinal springs, do not alter the taste of the sea, indeed, do not so much as soften it, so the pressure of adversity does not affect the mind of a brave man; for the mind of a brave man maintains its balance and throws its own complexion over all that takes place, because it is more powerful than any external circumstances. I do not say that he does not feel them, but he conquers them, and on occasion calmly and tranquilly rises superior to their attacks, holding all misfortunes to be trials of his own firmness. Yet who is there who, provided he be a man and have honourable ambition, does not long for due employment, and is not eager to do his duty in spite of danger? Is there any hardworking man to whom idleness is not a punishment? We see athletes, who study only their bodily strength, engage in contests with the strongest of men, and insist that those who train them for the arena should put out their whole strength when practising with them: they endure blows and maltreatment, and, if they cannot find any single person who is their match, they engage with several at once: their strength and courage droop without an antagonist: they can only prove how great and how mighty it is by proving how much they can endure. You should know that good men ought to act in like manner, so as not to fear troubles and difficulties, nor to lament their hard fate, to take in good part whatever befalls them, and force it to become a blessing to them. It does not matter what you bear, but how you bear it. Do you not see how differently fathers and mothers indulge their children? How the former urge them to begin their tasks betimes, will not suffer them to be idle even on holidays, and exercise them till they perspire, and sometimes till they shed tears⁠—while their mothers want to cuddle them in their laps, and keep them out of the sun, and never wish them to be vexed, or to cry, or to work. God bears a fatherly mind towards good men, and loves them in a manly spirit. “Let them,” says He, “be exercised by labours, sufferings, and losses, that so they may gather true strength.” Those who are surfeited with ease break down not only with labour, but with mere motion and by their own weight. Unbroken prosperity cannot bear a single blow; but he who has waged an unceasing strife with his misfortunes has gained a thicker skin by his sufferings, yields to no disaster, and even though he fall yet fights on his knee. Do you wonder that God, who so loves the good, who would have them attain the highest goodness and preeminence, should appoint Fortune to be their adversary? I should not be surprised if the gods sometimes experience a wish to behold great men struggling with some misfortune. We sometimes are delighted when a youth of steady courage receives on his spear the wild beast that attacks him; or when he meets the charge of a lion without flinching; and the more eminent the man is who acts thus, the more attractive is the sight: yet these are not matters which can attract the attention of the gods, but are mere pastime and diversions of human frivolity. Behold a sight worthy to be viewed by a god interested in his own work, behold a pair worthy of a god, a brave man matched with evil fortune, especially if he himself has given the challenge. I say, I do not know what nobler spectacle Jupiter could find on Earth, should he turn his eyes thither, than that of Cato, after his party had more than once been defeated, still standing upright amid the ruins of the commonwealth. Quoth he, “What though all be fallen into one man’s power, though the land be guarded by his legions, the sea by his fleets, though Caesar’s soldiers beset the city gate? Cato has a way out of it: with one hand he will open a wide path to freedom; his sword, which he has borne unstained by disgrace and innocent of crime even in a civil war, will still perform good and noble deeds; it will give to Cato that freedom which it could not give to his country. Begin, my soul, the work which thou so long hast contemplated, snatch thyself away from the world of man. Already Petreius and Juba have met and fallen, each slain by the other’s hand⁠—a brave and noble compact with fate, yet not one befitting my greatness: it is as disgraceful for Cato to beg his death of anyone as it would be for him to beg his life.” It is clear to me that the gods must have looked on with great joy, while that man, his own most ruthless avenger, took thought for the safety of others and arranged the escape of those who departed, while even on his last night he pursued his studies, while he drove the sword into his sacred breast, while he tore forth his vitals and laid his hand upon that most holy life which was unworthy to be defiled by steel. This, I am inclined to think, was the reason that his wound was not well-aimed and mortal: the gods were not satisfied with seeing Cato die once: his courage was kept in action and recalled to the stage, that it might display itself in a more difficult part: for it needs a greater mind to return a second time to death. How could they fail to view their pupil with interest when leaving his life by such a noble and memorable departure? Men are raised to the level of the gods by a death which is admired even by those who fear them.’
In a similar spirit (but from a different angle) I am reminded of a short quote by Epictetus that has stuck with me :
‘What would have become of Hercules do you think if there had been no lion, hydra, stag or boar - and no savage criminals to rid the world of? What would he have done in the absence of such challenges?

Obviously he would have just rolled over in bed and gone back to sleep. So by snoring his life away in luxury and comfort he never would have developed into the mighty Hercules.

And even if he had, what good would it have done him? What would have been the use of those arms, that physique, and that noble soul, without crises or conditions to stir into him action?’
Our potential can only be actualized through struggle. It is what gives us meaning.
 
‘Why do many things turn out badly for good men? Why, no evil can befall a good man; contraries cannot combine. Just as so many rivers, so many showers of rain from the clouds, such a number of medicinal springs, do not alter the taste of the sea, indeed, do not so much as soften it, so the pressure of adversity does not affect the mind of a brave man; for the mind of a brave man maintains its balance and throws its own complexion over all that takes place, because it is more powerful than any external circumstances. I do not say that he does not feel them, but he conquers them, and on occasion calmly and tranquilly rises superior to their attacks, holding all misfortunes to be trials of his own firmness. Yet who is there who, provided he be a man and have honourable ambition, does not long for due employment, and is not eager to do his duty in spite of danger? Is there any hardworking man to whom idleness is not a punishment? We see athletes, who study only their bodily strength, engage in contests with the strongest of men, and insist that those who train them for the arena should put out their whole strength when practising with them: they endure blows and maltreatment, and, if they cannot find any single person who is their match, they engage with several at once: their strength and courage droop without an antagonist: they can only prove how great and how mighty it is by proving how much they can endure. You should know that good men ought to act in like manner, so as not to fear troubles and difficulties, nor to lament their hard fate, to take in good part whatever befalls them, and force it to become a blessing to them. It does not matter what you bear, but how you bear it. Do you not see how differently fathers and mothers indulge their children? How the former urge them to begin their tasks betimes, will not suffer them to be idle even on holidays, and exercise them till they perspire, and sometimes till they shed tears⁠—while their mothers want to cuddle them in their laps, and keep them out of the sun, and never wish them to be vexed, or to cry, or to work. God bears a fatherly mind towards good men, and loves them in a manly spirit. “Let them,” says He, “be exercised by labours, sufferings, and losses, that so they may gather true strength.” Those who are surfeited with ease break down not only with labour, but with mere motion and by their own weight. Unbroken prosperity cannot bear a single blow; but he who has waged an unceasing strife with his misfortunes has gained a thicker skin by his sufferings, yields to no disaster, and even though he fall yet fights on his knee. Do you wonder that God, who so loves the good, who would have them attain the highest goodness and preeminence, should appoint Fortune to be their adversary? I should not be surprised if the gods sometimes experience a wish to behold great men struggling with some misfortune. We sometimes are delighted when a youth of steady courage receives on his spear the wild beast that attacks him; or when he meets the charge of a lion without flinching; and the more eminent the man is who acts thus, the more attractive is the sight: yet these are not matters which can attract the attention of the gods, but are mere pastime and diversions of human frivolity. Behold a sight worthy to be viewed by a god interested in his own work, behold a pair worthy of a god, a brave man matched with evil fortune, especially if he himself has given the challenge. I say, I do not know what nobler spectacle Jupiter could find on Earth, should he turn his eyes thither, than that of Cato, after his party had more than once been defeated, still standing upright amid the ruins of the commonwealth. Quoth he, “What though all be fallen into one man’s power, though the land be guarded by his legions, the sea by his fleets, though Caesar’s soldiers beset the city gate? Cato has a way out of it: with one hand he will open a wide path to freedom; his sword, which he has borne unstained by disgrace and innocent of crime even in a civil war, will still perform good and noble deeds; it will give to Cato that freedom which it could not give to his country. Begin, my soul, the work which thou so long hast contemplated, snatch thyself away from the world of man. Already Petreius and Juba have met and fallen, each slain by the other’s hand⁠—a brave and noble compact with fate, yet not one befitting my greatness: it is as disgraceful for Cato to beg his death of anyone as it would be for him to beg his life.” It is clear to me that the gods must have looked on with great joy, while that man, his own most ruthless avenger, took thought for the safety of others and arranged the escape of those who departed, while even on his last night he pursued his studies, while he drove the sword into his sacred breast, while he tore forth his vitals and laid his hand upon that most holy life which was unworthy to be defiled by steel. This, I am inclined to think, was the reason that his wound was not well-aimed and mortal: the gods were not satisfied with seeing Cato die once: his courage was kept in action and recalled to the stage, that it might display itself in a more difficult part: for it needs a greater mind to return a second time to death. How could they fail to view their pupil with interest when leaving his life by such a noble and memorable departure? Men are raised to the level of the gods by a death which is admired even by those who fear them.’
In a similar spirit (but from a different angle) I am reminded of a short quote by Epictetus that has stuck with me :
‘What would have become of Hercules do you think if there had been no lion, hydra, stag or boar - and no savage criminals to rid the world of? What would he have done in the absence of such challenges?

Obviously he would have just rolled over in bed and gone back to sleep. So by snoring his life away in luxury and comfort he never would have developed into the mighty Hercules.

And even if he had, what good would it have done him? What would have been the use of those arms, that physique, and that noble soul, without crises or conditions to stir into him action?’
Our potential can only be actualized through struggle. It is what gives us meaning.
Holy DNR holy DNR holy DNR holy DNR
 
1. God put us on the earth out of pure charity,
Pure charity, yet demands constant appraisal. God sound egotistical.

we didn't exist before he decided to plop us down in paradise
So why would he create us?

2. We have many guarantees, primarily the incarnation of God as Christ
Logical fallacy, appeal to authority. Just because it's well documented doesn't mean it's true.

3. Suffering is a result of original sin, everyone would be a pure adam if eve didn't bite the apple. (Most) Christian life is the process of theosis; doing what God wants us to (which is pure good) so that we may attain the perfection of God by becoming united with him in heaven in the body of christ. We use suffering to relate ourselves to Christ, who suffered greatly and took the burden of all of mankinds sin. But the covenant is (of course) willing, as God gave us free will, and this is good. So you need to willingly partake in the covenant of the forgiveness of sins, as for the "pleasure is king bro just be a hedonist" point, heaven is better than sex with literally any eve or stacylite on earth. 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000x better.
So... We must reject all earthly desires in order to get into heaven? Why? The logic is flawed.
He designed our bodies to like sex, hunting, resting, etc.
Why shouldn't we live life through those devices?
Of course, hedonism is pure sloth and gluttony.
But a life of asceticism is no better than hedonism; there's a fair medium that under Christian morality is rejected.
 
You should read plato on the natural conception of God. By all facets of logic he must be the one uncreated who created all, meaning he is omnipotent and omnipresent, below none. All things have been created by Him, including the objective moral goods and bads, which are perfect and immaculate in nature, as everything God does is, because he is perfect. He brought us into this world out of pure infinite grace.
Wow I agree with this. It sounds very similar to Aquinas’ argument for God.
 
Pure charity, yet demands constant appraisal. God sound egotistical.


So why would he create us?


Logical fallacy, appeal to authority. Just because it's well documented doesn't mean it's true.


So... We must reject all earthly desires in order to get into heaven? Why? The logic is flawed.
He designed our bodies to like sex, hunting, resting, etc.
Why shouldn't we live life through those devices?
Of course, hedonism is pure sloth and gluttony.
But a life of asceticism is no better than hedonism; there's a fair medium that under Christian morality is rejected.
1. God doesn't have a personality. And you can't really define what is good over pure good, you're egotistical. Worship is what God specifically made us for because he is pure Good and worshipping him fully makes us as happy as a human being possibly can be.
2. See above. Pure charity
3. I wasn't appealing to authority lol, false useage of fallacies because you don't have a response. and saying "just cause its well documented doesn't mean its true" is redundant because I think it's true
4. "Why?" cause God wants us to. He designed our bodies, and then original sin corrupted it. Thats where your hedonistic tendencies come from.
5. Asceticism is better than hedonism, because being bad is bad and being good is good. Very low IQ takes from you in this thread so far. Seems like a cope because you wanna jerk off. Very common from r/athiesm fedora wearing reddit bros
 
Aquinas based a lot of his stuff on plato
I could never deny the existence of the monotheistic God as actualized by various various religions independently. My only point of contention is the assertion that Christianity holds a monopoly over all religions. This unfortunately alienates many people from religion overall.
 
it isn't suffering in the moment, but it (usually) leads to suffering. And at the end of it all, theres the eternal suffering brought on by rejecting Gods covenant and willingly throwing yourself down there, which is a pretty good motivation if you don't buy the pure good infinite love angle.
maybe not in the moment, but actions have a tendency to catch up with you sooner or later, and they begin by eating away at your conscience. even on earth you generally receive blessings through virtue and face consequences for sin.

pascals wager never convinced me because an omniscient, all powerful God would be definition see through it and punish me for trying to scheme my way into heaven.
 
maybe not in the moment, but actions have a tendency to catch up with you sooner or later, and they begin by eating away at your conscience. even on earth you generally receive blessings through virtue and face consequences for sin.

pascals wager never convinced me because an omniscient, all powerful God would be definition see through it and punish me for trying to scheme my way into heaven.
Over for heavencels. Over if you believe in heaven or hell
 
Over for heavencels. Over if you believe in heaven or hell
My conception of heaven is being reunited with God eternally (pure and eternal love and bliss) or choosing to be apart from him but knowing that pure and eternal love and bliss was there but you didn't choose it in your life. As for why someone cant just change their mind after dying, it has to do with the essence of a Godly being. After you die, you cannot make a decision, your will is fixed by cause of your nature, you no longer have potentia and are a being of pure esse, this is also why angels are uncorruptible and satan is eternally evil. He gave them the same choice sometime at the beginning of time.
 
My conception of heaven is being reunited with God eternally (pure and eternal love and bliss) or choosing to be apart from him but knowing that pure and eternal love and bliss was there but you didn't choose it in your life. As for why someone cant just change their mind after dying, it has to do with the essence of a Godly being. After you die, you cannot make a decision, your will is fixed by cause of your nature, you no longer have potentia and are a being of pure esse, this is also why angels are uncorruptible and satan is eternally evil. He gave them the same choice sometime at the beginning of time.
This is a live example of the ‘sunk cost fallacy’. You are intellectualizing a fairy tale once used to scare children into good behaviour. You know it deep down. So do I.. Such a stupid system could never be created by the perfect God. To me it’s quite obvious where we go to after death.
 
This is a live example of the ‘sunk cost fallacy’. You are intellectualizing a fairy tale once used to scare children into good behaviour. You know it deep down. So do I.. Such a stupid system could never be created by the perfect God. To me it’s quite obvious where we go to after death.
Actually I'm just partaking in the infallible magisterium.
 
Actually I'm just partaking in the infallible magisterium.
Quoting the ‘infallible magisterium’ isn’t an argument, it’s intellectual outsourcing. That’s just an appeal to authority stacked on top of a sunk cost fallacy. You’re hiding behind dogma instead of thinking for yourself.
 
Quoting the ‘infallible magisterium’ isn’t an argument, it’s intellectual outsourcing. That’s just an appeal to authority stacked on top of a sunk cost fallacy. You’re hiding behind dogma instead of thinking for yourself.
redundant to try and argue this because I'm obligated to believe infallible magisterium because it's infallible, do you know what infallible means? All religion is an "appeal to authority" to God. Thats what literally everything ever is.
 
redundant to try and argue this because I'm obligated to believe infallible magisterium because it's infallible, do you know what infallible means? All religion is an "appeal to authority" to God. Thats what literally everything ever is.
Saying “I’m obligated to believe it because it’s infallible” is pure circular reasoning: you assume the conclusion (heaven is true) as the premise (it’s infallible) and call that a win. That’s question-begging. Claiming every religion is “just an appeal to authority” is a lazy overgeneralization that dodges actual arguments rather than meets them. You’re mixing an appeal to authority with special pleading insisting your authority is exempt from scrutiny and propping it up with sunk-cost thinking. You stick to a belief because you already committed to the institution that holds it. Reply only if you want to debate, bring reasons and evidence. If you’d rather hide behind Latin phrases and rhetorical shutdowns, at least be honest about it, you’re conceding the argument by fiat, not winning it. I think you know this deep down..
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top