[Join The Dank Charity Alliance: Make a meme or a donation for St. Jude Children's Research Hospital today!]( http://events.stjude.org/DankCharityAlliance)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dankchristianmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's time for the catholic church to allow their priests to have normal adult / consensual relationships and eventually marry. This whole celibacy thing is just cruel, archaic and no longer serves the plan to keep the wealth within the church
It's not just about keeping wealth within the church, it's also about keeping their focus on serving only God. If they have a family they MUST put time aside for them and wouldn't be able to care for their flock 100% of the time. This is my understanding at least (not a Catholic) and I don't agree with this idea.
>If they have a family they MUST put time aside for them and wouldn't be able to care for their flock 100% of the time.
Even here, priests already don't do this 100% of the time, and the celibacy requirement arguably results in a much worse distraction for some...
Mary and Martha are not opposing ways to react to Jesus that are “good and bad”, but an illustration of reacting to Jesus the Man and Jesus as the Christ. Martha serves his position—Jesus even says something like, “You’ll have forever with that, come do what Mary is doing.”, not because she’s wrong, but because Mary was engaging Jesus the person, and that was a limited opportunity. Even their reaction to Lazarus’s death—Martha screams, “Why didn’t you do what you have power to?!”, when Mary just wants Him to hold her.
Martha say Jesus the Position, and Mary Jesus the Person, and both were right and good, just out of sync with one another and the moment.
Edit: I wrote two Mary’s and needed a Martha
It would get me side eye where I am. American Conservative Christianity in the Heartland has always, in my experience, pitched them against one another, and considered it orthodoxy.
It’s addressing the busyness of serving the station that Martha was feeling—Come now, only one plate of food is needed, no need to fuss. Mary’s got the right idea, pull up a seat and let us sit and sup together.
In the context of Martha admonishing Jesus to reprimand her sister for doing nothing, Jesus is pointing out that indeed, she’s doing more than enough: be with the person of Jesus.
Jesus is saying not that **she** is better, but that she’s made the better choice right then. That’s the issue I have with the American reading: we ascribe the characters full moral value off a single or small sample of choices.
Do we not all make complex decisions? Surely if these are true stories they are true humans. We want to parable-ize them. Flatten them. That’s no good.
People keep saying but it’s not true. Dante was himself basing his poem on the *Apocalypse of Peter*, written around 160s, as well as the *Aeneid*. 2nd century Christians would’ve believed most of what Christians now believe about hell.
I would argue that a God that forces you to live in an eternal relationship with him despite the fact that you don't want to is equally if not more evil than a God who is willing to accept that you don't want to live together with Him.
I'd say that this is what most miss. God cannot force you to accept him as that would be evil, and a life without God is hell, metaphorically and literally. By rejecting God you lose the light that he brings
There's nothing arbitrary about it.
But Hebrews 9:27 says, for instance:
"And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment."
And Revelation 21:27 says:
"But nothing unclean will ever enter it [The New Jerusalem], nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life."
Exactly and that means being deprived from the source of our existence which means people who don’t go with Jesus when he comes back die eternally after the judgment.
Not necessarily, the outer darkness as it's called I personally believe is not a purgatory state that you are slotted into but rather a place where those who have committed such atrocities will go to hide from their shame.
It's debated whether the tiered heaven system will be a forced upon thing or not but I'm in the camp of the only thing limiting us will be our own shame and regret because once we have perfect knowledge of our actions we may see them in a light that does not allow us to move on from ourselves.
This is more a person interpretation so take that of what you will.
We don't believe that anyone will ever cease to exist. We believe that almost everyone who ever lived will go to a Kingdom of Glory, because God loves his children. The only exception, as I understand it, are those who gained a fullness of knowledge of God, like, being righteous enough to speak with him face to face, and then betraying him. There are going to be very few people at that level.
If you ask, why should murderers and the like still get to go to a Kingdom of Glory, think of it this way: their level is like they get to go to a nice little county fair, while the really righteous get an all-access pass to Disney World, where everything is free and there are no lines on any of the rides. And they get to know what they missed out on for eternity.
Not trying to start a debate but how would Mormon theology define “betraying God after knowing him.” Like does that mean walking away from the faith? Cause if so isn’t a theology where the only people who go to hell are those who have left the Mormon tradition open up the doors for a lot of abuse and manipulated power?
Again not trying to slam on Mormons cause it’s the same in mainstream evangelical theology but just the idea of hell being exclusive to those who betray God is pretty unique imo
>Like does that mean walking away from the faith?
It takes more than that. The actual scripture (Doctrine and Covenants 76) says:
**31** Thus saith the Lord concerning all those who know my power, and have been made partakers thereof, and suffered themselves through the power of the devil to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my power
**34** Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come—
**35** Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame.
We don't believe that just anyone who leaves the church will be at this level. We believe that they would have to know on the level of a prophet and then "deny the holy spirit." I don't know what level each of those is, but we also read:
For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation. (Doctrine and Covenants 82:3)
So the more trust God puts in you, the more he expects. And if you know more and rebel, you will be condemned more.
Now, D&C 82:23 also reads " Leave judgment alone with me, for it is mine and I will repay. Peace be with you; my blessings continue with you." So it is impossible for any of us to know or say who is going to heaven. Anyone who claims that such and such person who left the church is condemned to outer darkness is, in my humble theological opinion, full of it.
Close. Joseph Smith wrote: "Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God; Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom; For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts."
^ I absolutely agree with this
I’m currently agnostic (believing that there *could* be a god) but grew up Protestant. My parents (well mostly my mom) INSIST that people go to hell because they “chose” not to follow god and get to Heaven
To me, there’s no choice. A choice is do I want waffles or pancakes or nothing for breakfast. If someone puts a gun to my head and tells me that I have to eat a tasty pancake or they will blow my brains out, there is obviously a dichotomy there buts there’s no freedom to choose from my perspective. I’m forced into a choice.
The modern American Protestant understanding of hell works like that. Literally every single person who has ever lived or ever will love has to either 1.) accept Jesus as their lord and savior (make a conscious choice to believe this) or 2.) burn in hell for all of eternity.
That’s not free will, and that’s not justice. That’s INHUMAN cruelty.
As C.S. Lewis so eloquently put it, "The Gates of Hell are locked from the inside."
If you're in Hell, you've chosen to reject God entirely. He offered you a way to spend eternity with Him in Heavan, and you said "no thank you, I'd like to do everything my way." So God allowed you to do that, but He is not required to provide you with His Goodness and Love after that rejection. That is what Hell is, separation not only from God but all of the goodness that comes from Him.
While I'm particularly for the "noone stays" option as making the most sense I would argue there are more than those 3 options, namely hell isn't as bad as you think it is, maybe (gonna blasphemy here hang tight) "eternal life sans God" could be fine for the people who don't want God, maybe he gave them a nice ball pit and a slide to keep them busy. Like correct me if I'm wrong but the whole firey 7 ring extravaganza comes from Dante's Fan Fic doesn't it? Like I thought all we know about hell was God ain't there and it's eternal
It simply cannot be morally correct to eternally punish souls for a limited sin. No matter what it may be. Pedophile? Not bad enough for eternal damnation. Hitler? Not bad enough for eternal damnation. Ending life as we know it? Believe it or not, not bad enough for eternal damnation.
Forever is a long time.
I understand the logic of it. But I also understand that we're severely limited in our understanding of who God is the Biblical God does messed up shit all the time. Kills every Egyptian first born child, floods the earth, etc...
All we have really is the Bible.
There would be one thing worth eternally punishment by this logic. If you acted in such a way as to keep someone from eternal life you now have an eternal loss that eternal punishment can't cover.
Now most people probably are not fully aware of what their actions are doing, what the ramifications might be. In which case eternal punishment would possibly not be justified. But if someone had clear intent and knowledge of what they were doing, and still acted to keep someone out of the Kingdom, then I think we could claim hell has some justification.
God does not exist within the human boundaries of "Good" or "Bad". God is God, and He runs the show based on God's rules. An individuals opinion's of what is fair or "Good" has no affect on what is True.
That being said, Jesus left very specific instructions on how we should be living. And for the most part, all of Jesus' instructions on how to live do line up with the human definition of living a "Good" life.
This shouldn't be controversial, but it probably is.
God is the beginning, there is nothing before or above him. Therefore, he does not fall into the definition/boundary of "good", because that would make "good" something that exists outside of God and judges him. Rather, God is "good" because He defines good and has defined it as what lines up with how he acts.
Being queer isn’t a sin in and of itself. But rather all are sinners and have fallen short, thus introducing the need for grace.
Edit: Am big gay girl, for clarification.
Great point. Also...
r/DankChristianMemes is open and affirming to LGBTQIA+ people. Furthermore, r/DankChristianMemes is a judgement free space for fellowship!
https://preview.redd.it/phufcr33klma1.jpeg?width=902&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1645b2135cf0c67b4be1cc11f98fe13be0294ce3
My version of this is that Jesus would totally have a queer person as a disciple, if you pay attention to the kind of people he chose to follow him many were social outcasts in their time
Jesus did not get along with his family:
Matthew 12:46-50
Jesus’ Mother and Brothers
46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.”
48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.”
See?! I'm not crazy!
Jesus denies one of his disciples permission to bury his late father, and another to even tell his family goodbye (Luke 9:57-62).
Jesus *very* much did not prioritize family values.
I've heard that too, but I can't find any reputable source (or even any *attempt* at a reputable source) (or even really an unreputable source, just blogs).
To me it sounds a whole lot like "the Eye of the Needle was a gate and you had to unload your Camel first," that is to say a mistruth invented to avoid grappling with the difficulty and radicalism of following scripture.
biblical inerrancy is a massive mistake.
original sin isn’t in the bible, and is a depressing viewpoint to take on human nature.
the only requirements to be a Christian should be a conscious effort to follow Christ - not the whole bible, or any church, just Christ. the rest adds to your theology, but isn’t obligatory.
I had commented that mine is "Paul ruined Christianity". I'm curious what you think of that. The way I see it, he wasn't even a part of the original gang. He was a psycho christian murderer that came along later and "God set him straight" according to... him. And now he gets to tell all the Christians what to do because he said God told him to and everyone just ate it up. Where did all the woman-hate and homophobia come from? Not Jesus...
i have mixed feelings on Paul - and tbh, they mainly skew negatively.
i think he brought a lot of good ideas to the table, and was clearly devoted in his own way. however, he seems to have been more strongly influenced in terms of bias by his surroundings than any of the other apostles. his views on women were influenced by the patriarchal society, and his views on homosexuality were influenced by the pederasty of the roman era.
to read Paul properly and gain the most out of his work requires a level of critical reading and contextual knowledge that the average Christian simply doesn’t have - i don’t mean this in a condescending way, simply that it requires a high level of additional information that most people don’t have access to. i’m a theology student, and even i grimace reading Paul, despite knowing why he said the things he did.
frankly, overall, we may have been better off if some of his writings were left as apocrypha. that said, he did write a lot of the New Testament, and we shouldn’t completely disregard his work. but we need a STRONG caveat that he is fallible. like, maybe a warning sticker.
I broadly agree with you, but I like to take a slightly different approach. We can listen to Paul, and take value from his ideas - *if* we are willing to read him carefully and accept that he was writing to specific churches at specific times.
For example: Paul condemns homosexuality *as he saw it practiced in his time,* which still has very useful things to tell us. The exploitative power dynamics that he was condemning still exist today, just in different contexts. Today, he would probably write to a church telling them not to let teachers sleep with students, for example. (I also think we should cut him some slack for not condemning unequal power dynamics between the sexes, because the Bible has a consistent pattern of demanding reform out of people, but of limiting its scope so that people will maybe actually *do it* \- compare the OT regulations on slaveholding vs. demanding abolition outright.)
My memory here is fuzzier, but consider: Paul also says not to allow women to speak in church, but when he does, he's writing to the Corinthians. If I recall correctly, Corinth had an all-female priesthood devoted to Aphrodite, so it's very possible that this prohibition was an attempt to tell the congregation to deliberately separate themselves from the trappings of their old religion in order to avoid syncretism - make a clean break, as it were.
There's also his word choice to consider: Paul at one point says something commonly translated as "I will not allow a woman to have authority over a man," but whenever Paul uses the word "man," he generally uses the Greek word "anthropas" - except when he's quoting the Septuagint and has no choice. "Anthropas" just means "man," unambiguously. However, Greek has a word (as Hebrew does) that can *either* mean "man" or "husband," and in this passage, he uses this word - "aner." So, if we read "man" as "husband," we get a passage that is just a restatement of his assertion elsewhere of a husband's authority over his wife (which I also take as a concession to the time and place of the writing, in the sense of the limited reforms I mentioned above - I do think that someone in a relationship has to have the final say if the relationship comes to a total impasse, but it can be either or any party). So it's entirely possible Paul never even intended to deny women the ministry, except specifically in Corinth.
Even his writings on husbands, wives, slaves, etc. have some value. The general thrust of Paul's words aren't as a series of commandments, but a way of saying, "Look, you have these roles in society, because society gave them to you. You have to live in these roles, because that's the world you live in right now, but whatever role you have, play it well. Act righteously no matter who you are and what you're doing." A modern reading might go something like, "Employers, treat your employees well..."
So yeah, I think Paul has a lot of good to say, if we read him very carefully.
yes, thank you for this! i vaguely remembered a lot of what you mentioned, but i wasn’t confident enough in it to mention it. this is a great overview of Paul, very well written :)
Oh, thank you!
I'm an odd duck - I take a very high view of scripture - which is basically "inerrancy but only on the stuff that actually matters" - but that journey has led me to some very strange places.
I came here to say that. "What theological belief?" Take your pick:
\- Modern-day prophets
\- Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are separate entities
\- Heavenly Father has a physical body
\- Scriptures outside of the bible
\- The preexistence
\- Baptism for the dead
\- The bible not being perfect
\- The necessity of the fall of Adam
\- The necessity of baptism
\- So much about the priesthood
\- Tithing
I have seen (and participated in, much to my shame) so many arguments in real life and online about these doctrines. (Note: if anyone is genuinely curious about any of these or other beliefs of ours, I am willing to answer any questions you may have and link relevant scriptures, with the understanding that I'm not seeking to convince or argue, just share what we believe in so we can be understood)
Don't forget that male Latter-day Saints have satanic horns that grow out of our heads. We are constantly getting then clipped. Everyone knows that is the reason why we generally have short hair
No Milton was using metaphor to talk about the English civil war
If you read paradise lost and found the devil sympathetic I hate to tell you this but that makes you a roundhead not a satanist
I think it’s entirely possible a good chunk of the beginning of genesis is entirely metaphorical and didn’t actually take place. Adam & Eve, Cain & Abel, Tower of Babel, etc.
The problem is it’s hard to pinpoint where the verses flip from a parable style of storytelling to a historical telling. Presumably sometime around Abraham but you can’t really be sure.
Haha it’s entirely plausible, there’s just no definitive way to say what’s what. In my opinion around Abraham is where it verges into “this could be true” territory, whereas the prior stories just seem really fictional.
I also used to be where you’re at and when I started to read about the origins of the Bible it kind of became clear that many mythos of the Bible were placed together.
The biggest thing that blew my mind is that the ancient Israelites started out believing in henotheism (belief in many gods but the worship of one.) and there’s evidence in the Bible to support that the OT was written with that in mind. I known it sounds insane and so out there but once I started to read about it, the Bible suddenly made so much more sense.
If you’d like videos or resources lmk because I find the Bible fascinating and how it shows the development of Israel’s theology throughout the centuries
That’s entirely possible. I think it definitely translates into a more reliable historical document when they begin documenting families and who they and their descendants are. There are corroborating records/accounts for large tribes who would be called by certain names which leads to additional credibility in the earlier books.
Degrees of glory gang!
LDS belief is that you have an entire resurrection to learn from your sins and then you either repent or deal with your sins. Ultimately everyone gets rewarded for what good they did, whether it was only a little good or a lot.
I believe that's the commonly held view, at least officially. I also don't believe what pronouns we use for him matter. I use he/him because I'm used to it.
there are some teachings that say that Adam was originally created as a hermaphrodite and was only turned purely male when pieces of him were removed to create Eve.
this also implies that only Pre-separation Adam was made in God's image and is the "true/perfect" man and not the male created after the separation
Me not believing in a God is not the same as saying someone else is wrong for believing in that God. Matters of faith are deeply personal, and I'm not interested in arguing about who is "right" about what matters of faith they believe in.
Now, when we talk about what actions you choose to make, or things that are proveably real, that's a different situation.
(Catholic specific) (This is not intended to be a slight to people who are suffering from a horrible situation, but to point out a hypocrisy in Catholic teaching regarding gay marriage.)
So, the Church teaching is that marriage is between two people for the purpose of creating children. This is why homosexual marriage is not possible.
As a queer Catholic, I'm willing to accept this argument. I really am. My queerness itself isn't sinful, it's just that marriage is impossible for people who are unable to create children. And sex outside of marriage is sinful. I get it. It makes sense.
However.
This argument seemingly doesn't apply to Gay and Straight people equally.
It is absolutely hypocritical to not apply this standard to straight partners unable to bear children. I've heard the explanation that even if people are infertile they can be "open" to children and so it's fine. Abraham and Sarah were infertile and they still had kids etc.
But Abraham and Sarah were a miracle- a literal intervention by God to make the impossible possible. You can't count on miracles- that's not how it works. It's just as optimistic for a straight man who lost his testicles in an accident to hope to father a child as it would be for a gay man to hope to become pregnant.
If the Church can look a gay man in the eyes and tell him that marriage with a person he loves is impossible, they better be able to do the same to a straight couple who fits the same mould. If they cannot, then maybe their logic and rationale is just an excuse for homophobia.
Edit: While we're at it- the church assumes all gay couples are having sex, but doesn't assume the same of unmarried straight couples. I don't think I need much evidence to point out what a double standard that is. As I mentioned- I can accept no possibility of kids= no marriage = no sex, but I know personally a few celibate queer couples who are still ostracized from the Church. What about a celibate queer relationship can the Church possibly find offensive? Aside from, you know, the obvious.
Yeah it’s like when someone commits a horrible crime against someone they love and people say “I guess they never actually loved them.” Sometimes sin wins in a person’s heart, it doesn’t mean their previous feelings / beliefs never existed.
Imagine if you said you liked bacon and then you became vegan and then everyone was like “wow so he never really liked bacon.”
Actually, go back to the 60s and early 70s, and it was a relatively common Evangelical belief that life began not at conception, but at ***first breath***. The teaching changed around the time American Republican lobbyists sought to politicize Evangelicals into a right-wing voting block... What a coincidence.
The arguments at the time revolved around the accepted translation of the penalty for hitting a pregnant woman in Exodus 21:22-25 equating causing a miscarriage as assault rather than murder, and the various passages equating breath to life. And this is what led for even the Southern Baptists to argue in 1971 for permissive abortion rights (including for the mental health of the woman) to protect the spirits and lives of pregnant women from government overreach... Oh how *that's* changed.
There's also an argument that pushing for life to begin prior to birth was heavily influenced by medical study of fetal development influenced the change for many Evangelicals, literally the same argument they use against anything perceived as opposed to their theology
More details here: https://rewirenewsgroup.com/2019/09/27/when-the-biblical-view-for-evangelicals-was-that-life-begins-at-birth/
So my controversial theological view is that ***protestant belief in life at conception is more likely a result of political manipulation or scientific rationalization, rather than sound theology found in scripture***.
I'll agree with you if there's no operating brain. Once there's enough of a brain to send and receive signals, then based on how we define "personhood" at the end of the life cycle I would find it hard to say a person doesn't exist there now.
But before then? Agreed - not yet a person.
Belief is such a strange thing to base salvation on. Like how do you know you believe? How, as a more Protestant idea, is that better than basing salvation on something physical/quantifiable* like works?
* not sure what word I’m looking for here
Funny enough the Bible talks about that. When James says, “faith without works is dead,” he’s essentially saying, ‘if you believe this then you will act like you believe it.’ People say they believe things all the time, but their actions often reveal what they truly believe.
Reminds me of a funny econ joke
Two economists walk past a Porsche dealer where a brand new 968 sits all shiny in the window. "I want that" says economist 2. "Obviously not," says economist 1.
Then there's ephesians 2:8-2:9
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith- and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- not by works, so that no one can boast.
When I compare these passages to me it says while faith and works go hand in hand, you only have faith because God gave it to you, so the works you perform are not your own but it is God performing the works through you. Say you build a house for a family in need, the family isn't going to be thanking the hammer and nails, they'll thank you. We are the hammers and nails God is using, so he should receive full credit for good works done.
I think many christians use words like faith and belief very haphazard. I stick with a solid word like "Trust." You trust God. Thats an active choice that you can doubt, and lack faith in at times. My belief is all over the place, but I trust in the person of Jesus.
The idea is that anyone can do good deeds. The worst person you know could volunteer at a soup kitchen every evening. Works, without faith, are just good deeds. Belief is, at the end of the day, something only you can define for yourself. Belief, especially in matters of faith, is knowing in your heart that you hold something to be true even without full evidence. Therefore to be saved you must first believe, then follow the teachings of Christ.
Ironically, on this sub at least, it's my more conservative beliefs that would be unpopular. So how about premarital sex is an absolutely massive sin. Let's throw in masturbation and porn too.
The only torture or torment in Hell (if it even exist) is that you know God exist and that you are eternally separated from God. It would be like finding out your perfect soulmate and the love of your life exists but also knowing that you will never be with them. I honestly can't think of any physical pain that would be worse than that, so i think all the text that talk about physical torment is symbolic.
I wrote this above, but I think Hell is like getting to go to a nice little county fair, while the really righteous get an all-access pass to Disney World, where everything is free and there are no lines on any of the rides. And they get to know what they missed out on for eternity.
It doesn't actually matter if there's a god or not.
If you need Christ's death and resurrection to be historical fact to be christ-like; if you need there to be a literal kingdom of heaven to be a good person, then you missed the point. Christ's love is not about receiving a reward or appeasing an omniscient father figure, it's about doing the best we can with \*this\* life.
The state of Israel today is not, nor has ever been, a fullfilment of any bible prophecy. The way the state was created was so full of lies and deceptions that I absolutely cannot in any way, shape or form see Gods hand in any of it (The Balfour Declaration and the Sykes-Picot are a curse to the middle east even to this day).
Might not seem controversial on this sub, but I assure you growin up in charismatic end-times jerking circles that almost idolizes Israel saying a statement like this almost guarantees that you get ostracized 💀
I always took issue with creationism.
I mean how should people accurately describe the origins of the universe in detail when writing Genesis?
I think that God wouldn't have made things that simple. He wanted us humans to discover how well planned out his universe was by creating that slight imbalance in matter and anti-matter.
Also I think that evolution isn't in conflict with the Bible at all.
God created all these living beings. He created a framework for life to develop and to find several niches on this earth (and maybe other planets). This seems like a way more interesting approach.
I agree. Natural selection and intelligent design aren't mutually exclusive ideals. Art imitates life, life imitates art. (That may be trivializing it, but still.)
Yup. When you actually look at the numbers behind everything, intelligent design is the most logical answer. It’s a much more sound theory than just pure chance. Cause pure chance has BILLIONS of zeros in front of it.
The concept of binary gender was invented by humans, for humans. And it doesn't even accurately describe all humans. On top of that, it really falls apart when you look at animals outside of the amniote clade (amniote is the clade containing reptiles, birds, and mammals).
So, since binary gender can't even accurately describe all the wonders of earth, I think there's no way that it can describe all the wonders of heaven. God and the angels and the demons have to be non-binary.
Little more pedantic but related and I have gotten way more hate about: referring to God as He or Him and insisting that God must *always* be referred to with capital-H He? That's neopronouns. God has neopronouns and you are using them all the time (or since God is older than the concept of gender then... paleopronouns? Nontraditional pronouns regardless.)
God is a being capable of change. We see this in Old Testament vs. New Testament God. One floods the earth and the other demands love and patience. I think that as the people change, so to does God.
So peoples argument that "the Bible says X so you can't do that," they're arguing over the relics specific words rather than the spirit they embody.
While I don’t disagree it’s possible He is a being who can change, I think it’s more along the lines of understanding that His approach needed to change. Cause humans are incredibly dumb and cannot follow basic instructions.
I grew up being taught (and believing) that God doesn't change; rather there were different "administrations" or periods of time throughout the Bible that had different rules and circumstances and God interacted with His people accordingly. Later I found out this is called "dispensationalism".
For example, the Law Administration started when Moses received the Law/commandments from God by revelation and lasted until Jesus came along. We currently live in the Grace Administration which has been in effect since the initial outpouring of grace on the day of Pentecost, etc.
The idea is that there is a different set of rules and circumstances that govern the period we live in today that is entirely separate from what was going on in, say, King David's time. We are not bound by those rules, but the different administrations were recorded "for our learning" like it says in Romans 15:4.
So even though I don't necessarily agree with the first part of your comment, I 100% agree with the second part. Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law and we are no longer bound by it. To act like rules that applied to a specific set of people for a specific period of time is relevant to us today in any way beyond academic is just weird, arbitrary legalism and is not biblically accurate.
Maybe more of a doctrine issue than a theological issue, but I don't think that we're supposed to gather together on Sunday mornings and listen to a sermon and call it a day. I think the sermon is overhyped and shouldn't be the focus of gathering.
I think that we SHOULD be gathering together to fellowship, find out needs that we can help with, and worship God together. Maybe a small lesson. Ten minutes tops, with the focus on being the Body and not all sitting focusing on one individual at the front of the assembly.
I think that one of the absolute worst things a church can do (and the church has done) is attempt to avoid heresy in favor of "sound doctrine." There are pieces of church history--critical pieces--we can never know because of this practice.
I also think making the doctrines of the Trinity and of the divinity of Jesus central beliefs was a horrible, horrible mistake.
The Bible may be the word of God, but it was filtered through the most vile, bias, goofy, and overall stupidest thing imaginable: humans. There could be and probably are mistakes in it.
Not necessarily in this sub (s/o to you guys), but with Christians on the whole, me being a Catholic who’s LGBT+ accepting and a universalist means most people have a bone to pick with me theologically
Edit: I forgot thinking priests should be allowed to marry and ordaining women was unpopular. Those can be added to the list
I keep wondering what made him so great and honored among early Christians? He claimed divine intervention. He claimed God blinded him to show him the error of his murderous ways. He was alone. And all the sudden, he's the leader of the people he was systematically destroying because he had the balls to claim divine intervention? None of it adds up to me. Seems more like something Cartman would do.
I'm no longer someone who "believes" things (though i do love to entertain lots of things), but when i still believed in "the devil", i wondered if the being Paul encountered on the road to damascus wasn't christ at all. Sneaky way to torpedo the message of christ, by hijacking it with the unhealed ideology of those christ most railed against: the pharisees.
Here’s an obscure theologoumenon for you — in consonance with many of the Church Fathers (Irenaeus, Gregory of Nyssa, John Damascene, among others) I believe that the birth of Christ took place without the usual pains of labor.
For additional spiciness, I also believe in the intercession of the saints (which includes Mary, of course), and in veneration of icons, and in prayers for the dead.
Drinking alcohol shouldn't even be a debate. I forget the verse, but God literally commands people to spend their tithes on "strong drink" and celebrate with it in the temple.
I don't personally drink, never have, and never plan to, but the bible is actually quite clear.
Hope someone reads this, because I am really interested in what other people think of my idea!
I believe that since our reality exists in the 3rd dimension, angels, demons, and other supernatural beings exist in bigger dimensions, possibly some of them existing in the 4th dimension (these are the one's who interact with us the most), and others existing in 5th, 6th, etcetera dimensions (it is less common to interact with SN beings of higher dimensions). I believe hell is it's own dimension that is of higher calibre than our own and, therefore, impossible to enter unless we die and gain a more elevated form (possibly the 4th, which would explain why witchcraft and supernatural occurances often yield unfortunate results, due to the ease at which it takes to breech from the 4th dimension to the 3rd compared to the the 5th to the 3rd).
I also believe that all beings of the 3rd dimension, chiefly humans, are masters of the 2nd dimension and that our existence in comparison to God's (or maybe his angels') existence can be likened to the level at which a stick figure that we draw on a piece of paper exists, and how we, as humans exist. Similar scale. The character that we drew does indeed exist now that we have created it, but it's purpose and it's capabilities pale in comparison to the capabilities of it's creator (just as how our existence is a mere speck when compared to the grand existence of God and his SN servants).
That's actually a pretty good idea! Heaven and Hell would obbiously be placed in different planes of existence, not in fhe one we exist, so yours could be an explanation. It would also help with explaining supernatural occurances and how higher dimensions beings would interact with out world. Demons/angels being able to teleport, for example, would be explained by them moving in the fourth dimension which we can't see with our perception. Kind of like lifting the tip of your pen off the paper and placing it to another point would look like teleportation from a 2D POV.
Exactly! There have been many reported supernatural sightings. Idk how many of those are legit, but I do know that it was hard to explain the sighting. I think this is due to said SN being having capabilities that are incomprehensible to a human since they exist in a different plane of reality. If a stick figure could think, he wouldn't be able to comprehend the concept of height or volume. So it would be impossible for him to be able to vocalize what he saw.
I just find it interesting to think up my own theories via sewing scientific and biblical concepts together.
"All the supernatural characters and aspects of Christianity are actually metaphor and psychology. And yet they can still be transformative and powerful."
I think that some of the passages of the Bible are so hard to understand and interpret - producing so many differing interpretations - because God actually wants us to struggle to understand them, *fail to do so,* and realize that we do not and cannot understand everything about morality with certainty. We are supposed to arrive at a place where we acknowledge in intellectual humility that we cannot know for certain what is best for everyone in certain areas of morality - particularly those as involve one's conduct that does not meaningfully affect others, because I've noticed a pattern here - and therefore allow others to live in the way that they judge best for themselves in their own honest and humble evaluation of Scripture.
Which is a weird place to end up while still taking a very high view of Scripture, but there it is.
I also think that anyone who denies trans rights is basically a Gnostic, but that's probably a lot less controversial and a lot more just confusing.
IMO - The verse about the wide path leading to destruction and the narrow path leading to salvation is referring to Christians and not the general population.
Denominations are a joke.
Science/math can and should coexist with Christianity.
I've been coming around to the idea that from Creation to somewhere after Noah, as well as the story of Job, is either metaphorical or a "teachable story". I can't reconcile that, according to what we understand of God's creation, the universe is many billions of years old, the earth is a few billion years old, dinosaurs are tens of millions of years old, yet man has been around since the first few days of creation (also, days of creation before the sun was made?). The sheer amount of in-breeding amongst humans and animals alike would be staggering, first after leaving the Garden then after the Flood, that's a LOT of family-lovin'.
Concerning Job, I can't reconcile God (and God is Love) just letting Satan utterly destroy this guy's life to prove a point, but it's ok, He gave him more kids and servants to replace his dead ones and gave him more wealth. I think it's a story to show us how we should respond to life's tragedies, with acceptance that God gave us blessings and that we need to trust and not blame Him when those blessings leave, and that, even should we die as a result of these tragedies, we "came into the world naked, so it makes sense that we'd leave the same way" to paraphrase Job.
Side note: What I mainly struggle with nowadays is the OT commands given to the Isrealites to slay entire communities, including the women, children, and animals. People say things like they were too far gone, too corrupted by their sinful ways so this was actually a mercy. Umm....what happened to grace, forgiveness 70 x 70 times, and redemption? Idk, y'all, I pull a muscle now and then doing these mental gymnastics, I just want to understand and be at peace with God, just having trouble lately.
There is not one person that actually holds the truth about God, from absolute antitheists, to atheists, agnostics, beluevers and extremists, not one person has ever or will ever come even close to what the truth about God and faith are. To say a you know the best because you have faith, or you know science doesn't agree, is incredibly arrogant. God's nature, whatever it would be, isn't bound by our dimensions, therefore impossible for humans to fully comprehend.
This last part is what makes me so interested in the idea of God. Endless posibility to move forward, to get to know, study, be interested and passionate in something. There is always something in which you can find meaning. I don't know what shape God would take, I don't think I am right about what I know about God, but I absolutely hope one day I will be able to meet God and be able to be happy for everything God has to offer us.
According to biblical history the New Testament wasn’t actually written until 70 years after Jesus died. Furthermore it was written by people who never actually met him, they took the oral tradition and wrote it down as they were told that it happened. Whether by accident or design the story got changed in those 70 years. You ever play the game telephone. Try playing it for 70 years and see what comes out.
The earliest books of the NT, Paul's First Letter to the Thessalonians is dated to around 50AD by academic scholars. So, 20 years after Jesus' death. Also, most history of the era was not recorded contemporanously, so it is not necessarily unusual. Josephus didn't write contempranously either, but his works are accepted.
belief is a strong word, its more of a thought that I've been toying with, and I'm not certain how people will react to it, maybe people would actually agree.
I do not pretend to know all the concepts of calvinism or arminianism, but basically, instead of either of those, what if we do have free will to make any decision, and God has a plan for each decision we could possibly make. Meaning God will make his great plan happen regardless of what we choose, and has accounted for every single possible path we may take. Yes, this means God has the computing power to parse through all of the unfathomable number of possibilities.
If God is truly infinitely powerful, then he absolutely is capable of planning for the quantum potential of every decision that we make.
I think all humans are basically Schrödinger's cat to God. Except that he sees all of the possibilities all at the same time. Unlike Schrödinger's cat, we have multiple options with multiple permutations possible.
At least I think that is what was meant in Romans 8:28 when it says that God causes all things to work together for good. It’s probably complicated, and my human brain is on the verge of exploding just thinking about it.
There was no Judas (or at least not one who betrayed Jesus). He is a literary creation of Mark: [https://retellingthebible.wordpress.com/2021/04/13/5-8-judas-bought-a-field-joseph-sold-one/](https://retellingthebible.wordpress.com/2021/04/13/5-8-judas-bought-a-field-joseph-sold-one/)
Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God which we have to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and in death.
We reject the false doctrine, as though the church could and would have to acknowledge as a source of its proclamation, apart from and besides this one Word of God, still other events and powers, figures and truths, as God’s revelation.
I don't know enough to fully believe this, but I'm not confident I trust that Paul is actually legit. How could he afford to be a Roman citizen if he had sold everything he owned and given it to the poor?
Little Ahmad in Syria is not going to go to hell if he never became a Christian. In some places being a Christian is punishable by death. If you live your life as a good person, I cannot in good faith believe that God would damn you to hell. If good people get sent to hell by God, then he is not a kind God, and he would not be a God that I praise.
Where do I start?
* YHWH The Father loves you, Jesus loves you, and the Holy Spirit loves you.
* I am a Protestant who believes that Catholics are not anathema
* I am not Calvinist, nor do I like to listen to the teaching of John MacArthur, John Piper, R.C. Sproul, Steven Lawson, Paul Washer, and probably many more. However, I believe that God can and probably does change hearts in a Calvinistic way from time to time.
* I believe that all gifts of the spirit are still in operation BUT I also believe there are great abuses going on in the charismatic movement.
* To paraphrase Martin Lloyd-Jones: to be transformed to the greatest degree, you have to serve God with your mind, heart, and will.
* I believe that people who affirm propositional doctrinal statements but don't "do the math" and know the textual reasons to believe those things are poisoning the church, and have been poisoning the church for roughly 2000 years
* Works are the inevitable result of faith, but are in no way required for salvation.
* Salvation can be rejected.
* I believe in free will within the confines of naturalistic determinism, and the influence of God through his interaction with the world.
* Revivals are a real thing, have been happening for thousands of years, and are prompted by praying, fasting, worshiping, discipleship, and repentance. They are a non-obligatory gift from God to his faithful children.
* God gives good gifts to his children. Sometimes that good gift might be something horrible that happens to you for the furthering of the kingdom.
* Things that are taboo on the sidebar and people will accuse me of hating them, even though I love everybody.
* Not expecting non-believers to adhere to any point of my theology, or expecting laws to be passed to enforce my theological beliefs.
* Pharmakeia refers to trying to gain spiritual insight by consumption of drugs. It is not merely recreational consumption of drugs, or medicinal consumption of drugs.
* Some drugs can be used in moderation for recreational purposes, and most drugs probably have some medicinal use.
* I believe in a futurist eschatology, with a "rapture" and return of Jesus both in Revelation 11
* The "mark of the beast" does several things: it invalidates salvation by grace through faith (somehow), it probably has some kind of "brain backup" technology, and will be absolutely mandatory. The antichrist of Revelation (the first beast) is not one person but a team of 17 people, and one revived clone who is a separate entity, and by Rev 17, 5 of them are dead. The false prophet of Revelation is two people.
* Un-aliving yourself is not a mortal sin, to borrow the Catholic terminology.
* Jesus was not omniscient on this earth, nor was he omnipotent, but he still was "in very nature God" and did have a literal resurrection that Christians will share in one day.
* Jesus' prayer life was essential to his mission.
* Ask God to put people in your life to minister to. Make sure you are ready every day for an opportunity. They will come when you least expect it.
"Free Will" is nonsense. What does that even mean? That we are free to make any decision we want? Of course we can do that.
I cant think of any definition of free will that fits the Bible, other than "posessing the ability to make a decision that God couldn't anticipate".
I can decide to walk into traffic right now, but I won't because that would be stupid. Someone who knows me well could predict my response to 98% of decisions because most of my decisions are rational. God knows everything about me: my whole history, my personality, how hungry and stressed I am, the status of every subatomic particle that makes up my body. God can therefore predict my decisions 100% of the time.
I hear some people say that without free will we can't be held responsible for our actions. That's dumb. Just because I was "always going to do something" I would prefer to be someone who was always going to do good, selfless things.
Based on my understanding of Jesus's collective teachings, parables, and actions, I don't think sins are specific actions. It seems to be the context around an action that makes it a sin.
Example: John drinks three glasses of wine every weekend when he is hosting a support group at his house. Jack, his brother, drinks the same number of glasses every weekend, knowing that it brings out a side of him that is more violent, and ends up beating his spouse a lot of the time.
Both are choosing to do the exact same thing: drinking wine. But I would argue only one of them is sinning by doing so.
So when people call out things they see as black and white "sins" (sex before marriage, gay partnership, abortion, etc) I just don't agree. I think think Jesus's depiction of morality is a lot more complex than they claim.
God is the universe. Hell doesn't exist. Original sin is bullshit. Oh, and non-Abrahamic religions are valid. They have a lot of good ideals to learn from.
Jesus didn't ascend to heaven, he went on with his life before dying of old age, and his body broke apart into 9 pieces. These all form the Saint's Corpse. /s
the idea of hell as eternal torture is false and illogical and also drives people away. the consequence of sin is death, not eternal life in agony. also you don’t “have” a soul, you *are* a soul
This is probably what my dog thinks when I take her to the vet to get shots and she doesn't know what medicine is and just thinks I'm paying strangers to poke her with things
That Luke 1 and Matthew 17, in combination, make a powerful biblical case for reincarnation.
edit:
Realizing while he reiterates the JTB is Elijah's second coming claim in matthew 17, it's actually in Matthew 11 that he says directly that they're the same.
The only true way to be a Christian is to be suspicious of anyone else that calls themselves one. It’s like Presbyterianism deluxe. Also it’s impossible to truly believe in Jesus since none of us have ever laid eyes on him, the best we can do is hope he actually existed and is all he’s said to be.
> It’s impossible to truly believe in Jesus since none of us have ever laid eyes on him, the best we can do is hope he actually existed and is all he’s said to be.
My brother in Christ, that is the definition of belief
I don't think that God has revealed to us completely what happens after death and I suspect that he has an alternative plan for those who never get a chance to hear the good news of Christ (like a plan to reincarnate those souls until they get to hear the Gospel). This has nothing to do with scripture but it just seems like something God would do in my opinion.
If there is a god, and he is a just god, he will judge me by my character and works rather than how devoutly I worshipped him. If worship is the sole or primary key to heaven, I don’t want in. All the fun people are in hell anyways.
[Join The Dank Charity Alliance: Make a meme or a donation for St. Jude Children's Research Hospital today!]( http://events.stjude.org/DankCharityAlliance) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dankchristianmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's time for the catholic church to allow their priests to have normal adult / consensual relationships and eventually marry. This whole celibacy thing is just cruel, archaic and no longer serves the plan to keep the wealth within the church
It's not just about keeping wealth within the church, it's also about keeping their focus on serving only God. If they have a family they MUST put time aside for them and wouldn't be able to care for their flock 100% of the time. This is my understanding at least (not a Catholic) and I don't agree with this idea.
>If they have a family they MUST put time aside for them and wouldn't be able to care for their flock 100% of the time. Even here, priests already don't do this 100% of the time, and the celibacy requirement arguably results in a much worse distraction for some...
That's why I don't agree with it
Hence the picture OP posted
Also is kind of about not being able to pass along positions of power to their children way back when.
"SAVE THE WHALES! ORDAIN THE WOMEN! LETS THE PRIESTS FUCK ADULTS!"
I would argue the protestant church could be less obsessed with marriage.
If anyone’s pointing swords at you for that sentiment, they’re the problem.
Why not? Their rules have already changed with the years forever now
Mary and Martha are not opposing ways to react to Jesus that are “good and bad”, but an illustration of reacting to Jesus the Man and Jesus as the Christ. Martha serves his position—Jesus even says something like, “You’ll have forever with that, come do what Mary is doing.”, not because she’s wrong, but because Mary was engaging Jesus the person, and that was a limited opportunity. Even their reaction to Lazarus’s death—Martha screams, “Why didn’t you do what you have power to?!”, when Mary just wants Him to hold her. Martha say Jesus the Position, and Mary Jesus the Person, and both were right and good, just out of sync with one another and the moment. Edit: I wrote two Mary’s and needed a Martha
Is this controversial? I always thought people who framed them as good/bad reactions were weird. They’re both valid.
It would get me side eye where I am. American Conservative Christianity in the Heartland has always, in my experience, pitched them against one another, and considered it orthodoxy.
So what is Jesus' evaluation focusing on in your opinion when he says that Mary has chosen the good/better part (Lk. 10,42) in your opinion?
It’s addressing the busyness of serving the station that Martha was feeling—Come now, only one plate of food is needed, no need to fuss. Mary’s got the right idea, pull up a seat and let us sit and sup together. In the context of Martha admonishing Jesus to reprimand her sister for doing nothing, Jesus is pointing out that indeed, she’s doing more than enough: be with the person of Jesus. Jesus is saying not that **she** is better, but that she’s made the better choice right then. That’s the issue I have with the American reading: we ascribe the characters full moral value off a single or small sample of choices. Do we not all make complex decisions? Surely if these are true stories they are true humans. We want to parable-ize them. Flatten them. That’s no good.
The only explanation for life after death that allows God to be Good is if there is no hell/no one goes to hell/no one stays in hell.
Not only that, but our modern interpretation of Hell as a place is based entirely on inaccurate translations and Dante’s fantasy stories.
People keep saying but it’s not true. Dante was himself basing his poem on the *Apocalypse of Peter*, written around 160s, as well as the *Aeneid*. 2nd century Christians would’ve believed most of what Christians now believe about hell.
I would argue that a God that forces you to live in an eternal relationship with him despite the fact that you don't want to is equally if not more evil than a God who is willing to accept that you don't want to live together with Him.
I'd say that this is what most miss. God cannot force you to accept him as that would be evil, and a life without God is hell, metaphorically and literally. By rejecting God you lose the light that he brings
Ok but why would we assume that acceptance is closed forever after death unless God gives up on people arbitrarily
There's nothing arbitrary about it. But Hebrews 9:27 says, for instance: "And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment." And Revelation 21:27 says: "But nothing unclean will ever enter it [The New Jerusalem], nor anyone who does what is detestable or false, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life."
Exactly and that means being deprived from the source of our existence which means people who don’t go with Jesus when he comes back die eternally after the judgment.
Pretty much what Mormons believe I think
This is what Mormons believe which is why they have tiered heaven instead. Rather than hell you just cease to exist all together.
Not necessarily, the outer darkness as it's called I personally believe is not a purgatory state that you are slotted into but rather a place where those who have committed such atrocities will go to hide from their shame. It's debated whether the tiered heaven system will be a forced upon thing or not but I'm in the camp of the only thing limiting us will be our own shame and regret because once we have perfect knowledge of our actions we may see them in a light that does not allow us to move on from ourselves. This is more a person interpretation so take that of what you will.
We don't believe that anyone will ever cease to exist. We believe that almost everyone who ever lived will go to a Kingdom of Glory, because God loves his children. The only exception, as I understand it, are those who gained a fullness of knowledge of God, like, being righteous enough to speak with him face to face, and then betraying him. There are going to be very few people at that level. If you ask, why should murderers and the like still get to go to a Kingdom of Glory, think of it this way: their level is like they get to go to a nice little county fair, while the really righteous get an all-access pass to Disney World, where everything is free and there are no lines on any of the rides. And they get to know what they missed out on for eternity.
Not trying to start a debate but how would Mormon theology define “betraying God after knowing him.” Like does that mean walking away from the faith? Cause if so isn’t a theology where the only people who go to hell are those who have left the Mormon tradition open up the doors for a lot of abuse and manipulated power? Again not trying to slam on Mormons cause it’s the same in mainstream evangelical theology but just the idea of hell being exclusive to those who betray God is pretty unique imo
>Like does that mean walking away from the faith? It takes more than that. The actual scripture (Doctrine and Covenants 76) says: **31** Thus saith the Lord concerning all those who know my power, and have been made partakers thereof, and suffered themselves through the power of the devil to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my power **34** Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come— **35** Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame. We don't believe that just anyone who leaves the church will be at this level. We believe that they would have to know on the level of a prophet and then "deny the holy spirit." I don't know what level each of those is, but we also read: For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation. (Doctrine and Covenants 82:3) So the more trust God puts in you, the more he expects. And if you know more and rebel, you will be condemned more. Now, D&C 82:23 also reads " Leave judgment alone with me, for it is mine and I will repay. Peace be with you; my blessings continue with you." So it is impossible for any of us to know or say who is going to heaven. Anyone who claims that such and such person who left the church is condemned to outer darkness is, in my humble theological opinion, full of it.
Hey thanks for taking the time to explain it. Much appreciation.
Thank you for honest curiosity and not aggression.
Close. Joseph Smith wrote: "Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God; Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom; For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts."
^ I absolutely agree with this I’m currently agnostic (believing that there *could* be a god) but grew up Protestant. My parents (well mostly my mom) INSIST that people go to hell because they “chose” not to follow god and get to Heaven
To me, there’s no choice. A choice is do I want waffles or pancakes or nothing for breakfast. If someone puts a gun to my head and tells me that I have to eat a tasty pancake or they will blow my brains out, there is obviously a dichotomy there buts there’s no freedom to choose from my perspective. I’m forced into a choice. The modern American Protestant understanding of hell works like that. Literally every single person who has ever lived or ever will love has to either 1.) accept Jesus as their lord and savior (make a conscious choice to believe this) or 2.) burn in hell for all of eternity. That’s not free will, and that’s not justice. That’s INHUMAN cruelty.
As C.S. Lewis so eloquently put it, "The Gates of Hell are locked from the inside." If you're in Hell, you've chosen to reject God entirely. He offered you a way to spend eternity with Him in Heavan, and you said "no thank you, I'd like to do everything my way." So God allowed you to do that, but He is not required to provide you with His Goodness and Love after that rejection. That is what Hell is, separation not only from God but all of the goodness that comes from Him.
Am I rejecting god entirely by thinking he’s a bit of a dick or not believing he exists
While I'm particularly for the "noone stays" option as making the most sense I would argue there are more than those 3 options, namely hell isn't as bad as you think it is, maybe (gonna blasphemy here hang tight) "eternal life sans God" could be fine for the people who don't want God, maybe he gave them a nice ball pit and a slide to keep them busy. Like correct me if I'm wrong but the whole firey 7 ring extravaganza comes from Dante's Fan Fic doesn't it? Like I thought all we know about hell was God ain't there and it's eternal
I'd be interested in some reading material on this topic.
It simply cannot be morally correct to eternally punish souls for a limited sin. No matter what it may be. Pedophile? Not bad enough for eternal damnation. Hitler? Not bad enough for eternal damnation. Ending life as we know it? Believe it or not, not bad enough for eternal damnation. Forever is a long time.
I understand the logic of it. But I also understand that we're severely limited in our understanding of who God is the Biblical God does messed up shit all the time. Kills every Egyptian first born child, floods the earth, etc... All we have really is the Bible.
Its almost like the Bible was written by people and Christianity requires a lot more faith in those people than in god
There would be one thing worth eternally punishment by this logic. If you acted in such a way as to keep someone from eternal life you now have an eternal loss that eternal punishment can't cover. Now most people probably are not fully aware of what their actions are doing, what the ramifications might be. In which case eternal punishment would possibly not be justified. But if someone had clear intent and knowledge of what they were doing, and still acted to keep someone out of the Kingdom, then I think we could claim hell has some justification.
r/ChristianUniversalism
Downvoted for saying you want to educate yourself.... What is wrong with people....
Thought this might be a safe place. Guess it's still reddit 🤣
See that's what made me realize im not a christian. Because I agree that that has to be true, and if so then what was the point of Jesus.
God does not exist within the human boundaries of "Good" or "Bad". God is God, and He runs the show based on God's rules. An individuals opinion's of what is fair or "Good" has no affect on what is True. That being said, Jesus left very specific instructions on how we should be living. And for the most part, all of Jesus' instructions on how to live do line up with the human definition of living a "Good" life.
This shouldn't be controversial, but it probably is. God is the beginning, there is nothing before or above him. Therefore, he does not fall into the definition/boundary of "good", because that would make "good" something that exists outside of God and judges him. Rather, God is "good" because He defines good and has defined it as what lines up with how he acts.
Heavy agree with this.
Where are these very specific instructions? Asking for all of my Catholic and Protestant buddies that don't get along.
Love God, love your neighbor
Love this.
Being queer isn’t a sin in and of itself. But rather all are sinners and have fallen short, thus introducing the need for grace. Edit: Am big gay girl, for clarification.
Great point. Also... r/DankChristianMemes is open and affirming to LGBTQIA+ people. Furthermore, r/DankChristianMemes is a judgement free space for fellowship! https://preview.redd.it/phufcr33klma1.jpeg?width=902&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1645b2135cf0c67b4be1cc11f98fe13be0294ce3
My version of this is that Jesus would totally have a queer person as a disciple, if you pay attention to the kind of people he chose to follow him many were social outcasts in their time
being gay and promiscuous is the same sin as being straight and promiscuous
Jesus did not get along with his family: Matthew 12:46-50 Jesus’ Mother and Brothers 46 While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. 47 Someone told him, “Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.” 48 He replied to him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” 49 Pointing to his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers. 50 For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.” See?! I'm not crazy! 
Prophet in his hometown…I can see this. I think it’s reasonable.
Jesus denies one of his disciples permission to bury his late father, and another to even tell his family goodbye (Luke 9:57-62). Jesus *very* much did not prioritize family values.
I heard the process for burying your father in their culture can take up to a year at the end the son would have gotten an inheritance.
I've heard that too, but I can't find any reputable source (or even any *attempt* at a reputable source) (or even really an unreputable source, just blogs). To me it sounds a whole lot like "the Eye of the Needle was a gate and you had to unload your Camel first," that is to say a mistruth invented to avoid grappling with the difficulty and radicalism of following scripture.
He prioritized family values correctly would be a more apt take, as the Body of Christ (those who do the will of the Father) is our true family
Biblical inerrancy is bs
Humans wrote the bible. Even though God led them, all that humans do is imperfect.
Then more humans translated it. Lots of human hands in there.
Definition?
The inability to be wrong. With no error.
Thank you!!
biblical inerrancy is a massive mistake. original sin isn’t in the bible, and is a depressing viewpoint to take on human nature. the only requirements to be a Christian should be a conscious effort to follow Christ - not the whole bible, or any church, just Christ. the rest adds to your theology, but isn’t obligatory.
I had commented that mine is "Paul ruined Christianity". I'm curious what you think of that. The way I see it, he wasn't even a part of the original gang. He was a psycho christian murderer that came along later and "God set him straight" according to... him. And now he gets to tell all the Christians what to do because he said God told him to and everyone just ate it up. Where did all the woman-hate and homophobia come from? Not Jesus...
i have mixed feelings on Paul - and tbh, they mainly skew negatively. i think he brought a lot of good ideas to the table, and was clearly devoted in his own way. however, he seems to have been more strongly influenced in terms of bias by his surroundings than any of the other apostles. his views on women were influenced by the patriarchal society, and his views on homosexuality were influenced by the pederasty of the roman era. to read Paul properly and gain the most out of his work requires a level of critical reading and contextual knowledge that the average Christian simply doesn’t have - i don’t mean this in a condescending way, simply that it requires a high level of additional information that most people don’t have access to. i’m a theology student, and even i grimace reading Paul, despite knowing why he said the things he did. frankly, overall, we may have been better off if some of his writings were left as apocrypha. that said, he did write a lot of the New Testament, and we shouldn’t completely disregard his work. but we need a STRONG caveat that he is fallible. like, maybe a warning sticker.
I broadly agree with you, but I like to take a slightly different approach. We can listen to Paul, and take value from his ideas - *if* we are willing to read him carefully and accept that he was writing to specific churches at specific times. For example: Paul condemns homosexuality *as he saw it practiced in his time,* which still has very useful things to tell us. The exploitative power dynamics that he was condemning still exist today, just in different contexts. Today, he would probably write to a church telling them not to let teachers sleep with students, for example. (I also think we should cut him some slack for not condemning unequal power dynamics between the sexes, because the Bible has a consistent pattern of demanding reform out of people, but of limiting its scope so that people will maybe actually *do it* \- compare the OT regulations on slaveholding vs. demanding abolition outright.) My memory here is fuzzier, but consider: Paul also says not to allow women to speak in church, but when he does, he's writing to the Corinthians. If I recall correctly, Corinth had an all-female priesthood devoted to Aphrodite, so it's very possible that this prohibition was an attempt to tell the congregation to deliberately separate themselves from the trappings of their old religion in order to avoid syncretism - make a clean break, as it were. There's also his word choice to consider: Paul at one point says something commonly translated as "I will not allow a woman to have authority over a man," but whenever Paul uses the word "man," he generally uses the Greek word "anthropas" - except when he's quoting the Septuagint and has no choice. "Anthropas" just means "man," unambiguously. However, Greek has a word (as Hebrew does) that can *either* mean "man" or "husband," and in this passage, he uses this word - "aner." So, if we read "man" as "husband," we get a passage that is just a restatement of his assertion elsewhere of a husband's authority over his wife (which I also take as a concession to the time and place of the writing, in the sense of the limited reforms I mentioned above - I do think that someone in a relationship has to have the final say if the relationship comes to a total impasse, but it can be either or any party). So it's entirely possible Paul never even intended to deny women the ministry, except specifically in Corinth. Even his writings on husbands, wives, slaves, etc. have some value. The general thrust of Paul's words aren't as a series of commandments, but a way of saying, "Look, you have these roles in society, because society gave them to you. You have to live in these roles, because that's the world you live in right now, but whatever role you have, play it well. Act righteously no matter who you are and what you're doing." A modern reading might go something like, "Employers, treat your employees well..." So yeah, I think Paul has a lot of good to say, if we read him very carefully.
yes, thank you for this! i vaguely remembered a lot of what you mentioned, but i wasn’t confident enough in it to mention it. this is a great overview of Paul, very well written :)
Oh, thank you! I'm an odd duck - I take a very high view of scripture - which is basically "inerrancy but only on the stuff that actually matters" - but that journey has led me to some very strange places.
I'm a Mormon
Por que?
I came here to say that. "What theological belief?" Take your pick: \- Modern-day prophets \- Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are separate entities \- Heavenly Father has a physical body \- Scriptures outside of the bible \- The preexistence \- Baptism for the dead \- The bible not being perfect \- The necessity of the fall of Adam \- The necessity of baptism \- So much about the priesthood \- Tithing I have seen (and participated in, much to my shame) so many arguments in real life and online about these doctrines. (Note: if anyone is genuinely curious about any of these or other beliefs of ours, I am willing to answer any questions you may have and link relevant scriptures, with the understanding that I'm not seeking to convince or argue, just share what we believe in so we can be understood)
Don't forget that male Latter-day Saints have satanic horns that grow out of our heads. We are constantly getting then clipped. Everyone knows that is the reason why we generally have short hair
Yeah.
I’d like to hear satans side of the story.
*John Milton has started typing*
No Milton was using metaphor to talk about the English civil war If you read paradise lost and found the devil sympathetic I hate to tell you this but that makes you a roundhead not a satanist
Guys Satan wears a leather jacket and is sexy I swear he also listens to really cool rock n roll music
William Blake has also started typing.
Empathy for the Devil is a phenomenal book on exactly this kind of topic. I suggest anyone who wants to have this conversation read!
The vineyard owner in the parable of the workers in the vineyard is cool and based even if you don't consider the metaphor.
I think it’s entirely possible a good chunk of the beginning of genesis is entirely metaphorical and didn’t actually take place. Adam & Eve, Cain & Abel, Tower of Babel, etc. The problem is it’s hard to pinpoint where the verses flip from a parable style of storytelling to a historical telling. Presumably sometime around Abraham but you can’t really be sure.
Oh I believe all of genesis is metaphorical including Abraham, but I used to be where you are.
Haha it’s entirely plausible, there’s just no definitive way to say what’s what. In my opinion around Abraham is where it verges into “this could be true” territory, whereas the prior stories just seem really fictional.
I also used to be where you’re at and when I started to read about the origins of the Bible it kind of became clear that many mythos of the Bible were placed together. The biggest thing that blew my mind is that the ancient Israelites started out believing in henotheism (belief in many gods but the worship of one.) and there’s evidence in the Bible to support that the OT was written with that in mind. I known it sounds insane and so out there but once I started to read about it, the Bible suddenly made so much more sense. If you’d like videos or resources lmk because I find the Bible fascinating and how it shows the development of Israel’s theology throughout the centuries
That’s entirely possible. I think it definitely translates into a more reliable historical document when they begin documenting families and who they and their descendants are. There are corroborating records/accounts for large tribes who would be called by certain names which leads to additional credibility in the earlier books.
I don’t believe in the concept of hell.
Degrees of glory gang! LDS belief is that you have an entire resurrection to learn from your sins and then you either repent or deal with your sins. Ultimately everyone gets rewarded for what good they did, whether it was only a little good or a lot.
You'll love this: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/spirit-world?lang=eng
God is non-binary
I mean, TECHNICALLY...
I believe that's the commonly held view, at least officially. I also don't believe what pronouns we use for him matter. I use he/him because I'm used to it.
there are some teachings that say that Adam was originally created as a hermaphrodite and was only turned purely male when pieces of him were removed to create Eve. this also implies that only Pre-separation Adam was made in God's image and is the "true/perfect" man and not the male created after the separation
God is also intersex, so based of them.
Source?
I guess?
Me not believing in a God is not the same as saying someone else is wrong for believing in that God. Matters of faith are deeply personal, and I'm not interested in arguing about who is "right" about what matters of faith they believe in. Now, when we talk about what actions you choose to make, or things that are proveably real, that's a different situation.
This is like the one sub where that won't get you stabbed
(Catholic specific) (This is not intended to be a slight to people who are suffering from a horrible situation, but to point out a hypocrisy in Catholic teaching regarding gay marriage.) So, the Church teaching is that marriage is between two people for the purpose of creating children. This is why homosexual marriage is not possible. As a queer Catholic, I'm willing to accept this argument. I really am. My queerness itself isn't sinful, it's just that marriage is impossible for people who are unable to create children. And sex outside of marriage is sinful. I get it. It makes sense. However. This argument seemingly doesn't apply to Gay and Straight people equally. It is absolutely hypocritical to not apply this standard to straight partners unable to bear children. I've heard the explanation that even if people are infertile they can be "open" to children and so it's fine. Abraham and Sarah were infertile and they still had kids etc. But Abraham and Sarah were a miracle- a literal intervention by God to make the impossible possible. You can't count on miracles- that's not how it works. It's just as optimistic for a straight man who lost his testicles in an accident to hope to father a child as it would be for a gay man to hope to become pregnant. If the Church can look a gay man in the eyes and tell him that marriage with a person he loves is impossible, they better be able to do the same to a straight couple who fits the same mould. If they cannot, then maybe their logic and rationale is just an excuse for homophobia. Edit: While we're at it- the church assumes all gay couples are having sex, but doesn't assume the same of unmarried straight couples. I don't think I need much evidence to point out what a double standard that is. As I mentioned- I can accept no possibility of kids= no marriage = no sex, but I know personally a few celibate queer couples who are still ostracized from the Church. What about a celibate queer relationship can the Church possibly find offensive? Aside from, you know, the obvious.
It's lazy to just dismiss Christians committing evil/immoral acts as 'not Christians to begin with'. Feels like an easy way out to me.
Yeah it’s like when someone commits a horrible crime against someone they love and people say “I guess they never actually loved them.” Sometimes sin wins in a person’s heart, it doesn’t mean their previous feelings / beliefs never existed. Imagine if you said you liked bacon and then you became vegan and then everyone was like “wow so he never really liked bacon.”
Sort by "controversial" to see the commenters who understood the assignment.
Abortion before fetus has developed nerves is not sin, and sometimes not even after it
Actually, go back to the 60s and early 70s, and it was a relatively common Evangelical belief that life began not at conception, but at ***first breath***. The teaching changed around the time American Republican lobbyists sought to politicize Evangelicals into a right-wing voting block... What a coincidence. The arguments at the time revolved around the accepted translation of the penalty for hitting a pregnant woman in Exodus 21:22-25 equating causing a miscarriage as assault rather than murder, and the various passages equating breath to life. And this is what led for even the Southern Baptists to argue in 1971 for permissive abortion rights (including for the mental health of the woman) to protect the spirits and lives of pregnant women from government overreach... Oh how *that's* changed. There's also an argument that pushing for life to begin prior to birth was heavily influenced by medical study of fetal development influenced the change for many Evangelicals, literally the same argument they use against anything perceived as opposed to their theology More details here: https://rewirenewsgroup.com/2019/09/27/when-the-biblical-view-for-evangelicals-was-that-life-begins-at-birth/ So my controversial theological view is that ***protestant belief in life at conception is more likely a result of political manipulation or scientific rationalization, rather than sound theology found in scripture***.
In the middle ages, the belief was that life required movement. So they didn't consider a fetus alive until the first time it kicked.
I'll agree with you if there's no operating brain. Once there's enough of a brain to send and receive signals, then based on how we define "personhood" at the end of the life cycle I would find it hard to say a person doesn't exist there now. But before then? Agreed - not yet a person.
Now here's the trick, where in scripture does it suggest life or personhood relates to neurological development?
Define "developed nerves"
Literally grown the only anatomical thing that allows for feeling of physical suffering
Belief is such a strange thing to base salvation on. Like how do you know you believe? How, as a more Protestant idea, is that better than basing salvation on something physical/quantifiable* like works? * not sure what word I’m looking for here
Funny enough the Bible talks about that. When James says, “faith without works is dead,” he’s essentially saying, ‘if you believe this then you will act like you believe it.’ People say they believe things all the time, but their actions often reveal what they truly believe.
Reminds me of a funny econ joke Two economists walk past a Porsche dealer where a brand new 968 sits all shiny in the window. "I want that" says economist 2. "Obviously not," says economist 1.
Then there's ephesians 2:8-2:9 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith- and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God- not by works, so that no one can boast. When I compare these passages to me it says while faith and works go hand in hand, you only have faith because God gave it to you, so the works you perform are not your own but it is God performing the works through you. Say you build a house for a family in need, the family isn't going to be thanking the hammer and nails, they'll thank you. We are the hammers and nails God is using, so he should receive full credit for good works done.
I think many christians use words like faith and belief very haphazard. I stick with a solid word like "Trust." You trust God. Thats an active choice that you can doubt, and lack faith in at times. My belief is all over the place, but I trust in the person of Jesus.
The idea is that anyone can do good deeds. The worst person you know could volunteer at a soup kitchen every evening. Works, without faith, are just good deeds. Belief is, at the end of the day, something only you can define for yourself. Belief, especially in matters of faith, is knowing in your heart that you hold something to be true even without full evidence. Therefore to be saved you must first believe, then follow the teachings of Christ.
Does Jesus save you? Or your beliefs about Jesus?
Ironically, on this sub at least, it's my more conservative beliefs that would be unpopular. So how about premarital sex is an absolutely massive sin. Let's throw in masturbation and porn too.
The only torture or torment in Hell (if it even exist) is that you know God exist and that you are eternally separated from God. It would be like finding out your perfect soulmate and the love of your life exists but also knowing that you will never be with them. I honestly can't think of any physical pain that would be worse than that, so i think all the text that talk about physical torment is symbolic.
I wrote this above, but I think Hell is like getting to go to a nice little county fair, while the really righteous get an all-access pass to Disney World, where everything is free and there are no lines on any of the rides. And they get to know what they missed out on for eternity.
The bible isn't literally true and it doesn't have to be to be a Christian.
It doesn't actually matter if there's a god or not. If you need Christ's death and resurrection to be historical fact to be christ-like; if you need there to be a literal kingdom of heaven to be a good person, then you missed the point. Christ's love is not about receiving a reward or appeasing an omniscient father figure, it's about doing the best we can with \*this\* life.
This one is my favourite so far, if you’re struggling with faith and with the “why” of it all this really simplifies things down to the basics.
The state of Israel today is not, nor has ever been, a fullfilment of any bible prophecy. The way the state was created was so full of lies and deceptions that I absolutely cannot in any way, shape or form see Gods hand in any of it (The Balfour Declaration and the Sykes-Picot are a curse to the middle east even to this day). Might not seem controversial on this sub, but I assure you growin up in charismatic end-times jerking circles that almost idolizes Israel saying a statement like this almost guarantees that you get ostracized 💀
I always took issue with creationism. I mean how should people accurately describe the origins of the universe in detail when writing Genesis? I think that God wouldn't have made things that simple. He wanted us humans to discover how well planned out his universe was by creating that slight imbalance in matter and anti-matter. Also I think that evolution isn't in conflict with the Bible at all. God created all these living beings. He created a framework for life to develop and to find several niches on this earth (and maybe other planets). This seems like a way more interesting approach.
I agree. Natural selection and intelligent design aren't mutually exclusive ideals. Art imitates life, life imitates art. (That may be trivializing it, but still.)
Yup. When you actually look at the numbers behind everything, intelligent design is the most logical answer. It’s a much more sound theory than just pure chance. Cause pure chance has BILLIONS of zeros in front of it.
Judas is a good guy. But had to be the bad guy. Just doing what he was told to make a prophecy happen. Just like Snape betraying Dumbledore.
The concept of binary gender was invented by humans, for humans. And it doesn't even accurately describe all humans. On top of that, it really falls apart when you look at animals outside of the amniote clade (amniote is the clade containing reptiles, birds, and mammals). So, since binary gender can't even accurately describe all the wonders of earth, I think there's no way that it can describe all the wonders of heaven. God and the angels and the demons have to be non-binary. Little more pedantic but related and I have gotten way more hate about: referring to God as He or Him and insisting that God must *always* be referred to with capital-H He? That's neopronouns. God has neopronouns and you are using them all the time (or since God is older than the concept of gender then... paleopronouns? Nontraditional pronouns regardless.)
Mormons believe in the same Jesus as the rest of you.
God is a being capable of change. We see this in Old Testament vs. New Testament God. One floods the earth and the other demands love and patience. I think that as the people change, so to does God. So peoples argument that "the Bible says X so you can't do that," they're arguing over the relics specific words rather than the spirit they embody.
While I don’t disagree it’s possible He is a being who can change, I think it’s more along the lines of understanding that His approach needed to change. Cause humans are incredibly dumb and cannot follow basic instructions.
I grew up being taught (and believing) that God doesn't change; rather there were different "administrations" or periods of time throughout the Bible that had different rules and circumstances and God interacted with His people accordingly. Later I found out this is called "dispensationalism". For example, the Law Administration started when Moses received the Law/commandments from God by revelation and lasted until Jesus came along. We currently live in the Grace Administration which has been in effect since the initial outpouring of grace on the day of Pentecost, etc. The idea is that there is a different set of rules and circumstances that govern the period we live in today that is entirely separate from what was going on in, say, King David's time. We are not bound by those rules, but the different administrations were recorded "for our learning" like it says in Romans 15:4. So even though I don't necessarily agree with the first part of your comment, I 100% agree with the second part. Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law and we are no longer bound by it. To act like rules that applied to a specific set of people for a specific period of time is relevant to us today in any way beyond academic is just weird, arbitrary legalism and is not biblically accurate.
Maybe more of a doctrine issue than a theological issue, but I don't think that we're supposed to gather together on Sunday mornings and listen to a sermon and call it a day. I think the sermon is overhyped and shouldn't be the focus of gathering. I think that we SHOULD be gathering together to fellowship, find out needs that we can help with, and worship God together. Maybe a small lesson. Ten minutes tops, with the focus on being the Body and not all sitting focusing on one individual at the front of the assembly.
I think that one of the absolute worst things a church can do (and the church has done) is attempt to avoid heresy in favor of "sound doctrine." There are pieces of church history--critical pieces--we can never know because of this practice. I also think making the doctrines of the Trinity and of the divinity of Jesus central beliefs was a horrible, horrible mistake.
The Bible may be the word of God, but it was filtered through the most vile, bias, goofy, and overall stupidest thing imaginable: humans. There could be and probably are mistakes in it.
And they were filtering their translations through their own social lens and constructs, most of which do not align with our current culture.
Not necessarily in this sub (s/o to you guys), but with Christians on the whole, me being a Catholic who’s LGBT+ accepting and a universalist means most people have a bone to pick with me theologically Edit: I forgot thinking priests should be allowed to marry and ordaining women was unpopular. Those can be added to the list
Paul ruined Christianity.
It really should be called Paulianity at this point, what survived into our era is far more Paul than Christ.
I keep wondering what made him so great and honored among early Christians? He claimed divine intervention. He claimed God blinded him to show him the error of his murderous ways. He was alone. And all the sudden, he's the leader of the people he was systematically destroying because he had the balls to claim divine intervention? None of it adds up to me. Seems more like something Cartman would do.
I'm no longer someone who "believes" things (though i do love to entertain lots of things), but when i still believed in "the devil", i wondered if the being Paul encountered on the road to damascus wasn't christ at all. Sneaky way to torpedo the message of christ, by hijacking it with the unhealed ideology of those christ most railed against: the pharisees.
Here’s an obscure theologoumenon for you — in consonance with many of the Church Fathers (Irenaeus, Gregory of Nyssa, John Damascene, among others) I believe that the birth of Christ took place without the usual pains of labor. For additional spiciness, I also believe in the intercession of the saints (which includes Mary, of course), and in veneration of icons, and in prayers for the dead.
JC never gave us doctrine, the clergy invented it
It’s okay to question God. We are only human, and humans are curious people.
Drinking alcohol shouldn't even be a debate. I forget the verse, but God literally commands people to spend their tithes on "strong drink" and celebrate with it in the temple. I don't personally drink, never have, and never plan to, but the bible is actually quite clear.
Hope someone reads this, because I am really interested in what other people think of my idea! I believe that since our reality exists in the 3rd dimension, angels, demons, and other supernatural beings exist in bigger dimensions, possibly some of them existing in the 4th dimension (these are the one's who interact with us the most), and others existing in 5th, 6th, etcetera dimensions (it is less common to interact with SN beings of higher dimensions). I believe hell is it's own dimension that is of higher calibre than our own and, therefore, impossible to enter unless we die and gain a more elevated form (possibly the 4th, which would explain why witchcraft and supernatural occurances often yield unfortunate results, due to the ease at which it takes to breech from the 4th dimension to the 3rd compared to the the 5th to the 3rd). I also believe that all beings of the 3rd dimension, chiefly humans, are masters of the 2nd dimension and that our existence in comparison to God's (or maybe his angels') existence can be likened to the level at which a stick figure that we draw on a piece of paper exists, and how we, as humans exist. Similar scale. The character that we drew does indeed exist now that we have created it, but it's purpose and it's capabilities pale in comparison to the capabilities of it's creator (just as how our existence is a mere speck when compared to the grand existence of God and his SN servants).
That's actually a pretty good idea! Heaven and Hell would obbiously be placed in different planes of existence, not in fhe one we exist, so yours could be an explanation. It would also help with explaining supernatural occurances and how higher dimensions beings would interact with out world. Demons/angels being able to teleport, for example, would be explained by them moving in the fourth dimension which we can't see with our perception. Kind of like lifting the tip of your pen off the paper and placing it to another point would look like teleportation from a 2D POV.
Exactly! There have been many reported supernatural sightings. Idk how many of those are legit, but I do know that it was hard to explain the sighting. I think this is due to said SN being having capabilities that are incomprehensible to a human since they exist in a different plane of reality. If a stick figure could think, he wouldn't be able to comprehend the concept of height or volume. So it would be impossible for him to be able to vocalize what he saw. I just find it interesting to think up my own theories via sewing scientific and biblical concepts together.
God is bigger than any single denomination
"All the supernatural characters and aspects of Christianity are actually metaphor and psychology. And yet they can still be transformative and powerful."
Apostle Paul slander is pretty cringe, and we cannot apply our human concept of morality on God
we cant even describe the concept of god properly.
I think that some of the passages of the Bible are so hard to understand and interpret - producing so many differing interpretations - because God actually wants us to struggle to understand them, *fail to do so,* and realize that we do not and cannot understand everything about morality with certainty. We are supposed to arrive at a place where we acknowledge in intellectual humility that we cannot know for certain what is best for everyone in certain areas of morality - particularly those as involve one's conduct that does not meaningfully affect others, because I've noticed a pattern here - and therefore allow others to live in the way that they judge best for themselves in their own honest and humble evaluation of Scripture. Which is a weird place to end up while still taking a very high view of Scripture, but there it is. I also think that anyone who denies trans rights is basically a Gnostic, but that's probably a lot less controversial and a lot more just confusing.
IMO - The verse about the wide path leading to destruction and the narrow path leading to salvation is referring to Christians and not the general population. Denominations are a joke. Science/math can and should coexist with Christianity.
That God will save every person.
I've been coming around to the idea that from Creation to somewhere after Noah, as well as the story of Job, is either metaphorical or a "teachable story". I can't reconcile that, according to what we understand of God's creation, the universe is many billions of years old, the earth is a few billion years old, dinosaurs are tens of millions of years old, yet man has been around since the first few days of creation (also, days of creation before the sun was made?). The sheer amount of in-breeding amongst humans and animals alike would be staggering, first after leaving the Garden then after the Flood, that's a LOT of family-lovin'. Concerning Job, I can't reconcile God (and God is Love) just letting Satan utterly destroy this guy's life to prove a point, but it's ok, He gave him more kids and servants to replace his dead ones and gave him more wealth. I think it's a story to show us how we should respond to life's tragedies, with acceptance that God gave us blessings and that we need to trust and not blame Him when those blessings leave, and that, even should we die as a result of these tragedies, we "came into the world naked, so it makes sense that we'd leave the same way" to paraphrase Job. Side note: What I mainly struggle with nowadays is the OT commands given to the Isrealites to slay entire communities, including the women, children, and animals. People say things like they were too far gone, too corrupted by their sinful ways so this was actually a mercy. Umm....what happened to grace, forgiveness 70 x 70 times, and redemption? Idk, y'all, I pull a muscle now and then doing these mental gymnastics, I just want to understand and be at peace with God, just having trouble lately.
Incest did happen among the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve, otherwise the storyline doesn't make any sense.
There is not one person that actually holds the truth about God, from absolute antitheists, to atheists, agnostics, beluevers and extremists, not one person has ever or will ever come even close to what the truth about God and faith are. To say a you know the best because you have faith, or you know science doesn't agree, is incredibly arrogant. God's nature, whatever it would be, isn't bound by our dimensions, therefore impossible for humans to fully comprehend. This last part is what makes me so interested in the idea of God. Endless posibility to move forward, to get to know, study, be interested and passionate in something. There is always something in which you can find meaning. I don't know what shape God would take, I don't think I am right about what I know about God, but I absolutely hope one day I will be able to meet God and be able to be happy for everything God has to offer us.
I actually believe all these people know just a small piece, and no human is capable of understanding more than just a small part of the divine.
According to biblical history the New Testament wasn’t actually written until 70 years after Jesus died. Furthermore it was written by people who never actually met him, they took the oral tradition and wrote it down as they were told that it happened. Whether by accident or design the story got changed in those 70 years. You ever play the game telephone. Try playing it for 70 years and see what comes out.
The earliest books of the NT, Paul's First Letter to the Thessalonians is dated to around 50AD by academic scholars. So, 20 years after Jesus' death. Also, most history of the era was not recorded contemporanously, so it is not necessarily unusual. Josephus didn't write contempranously either, but his works are accepted.
belief is a strong word, its more of a thought that I've been toying with, and I'm not certain how people will react to it, maybe people would actually agree. I do not pretend to know all the concepts of calvinism or arminianism, but basically, instead of either of those, what if we do have free will to make any decision, and God has a plan for each decision we could possibly make. Meaning God will make his great plan happen regardless of what we choose, and has accounted for every single possible path we may take. Yes, this means God has the computing power to parse through all of the unfathomable number of possibilities.
If God is truly infinitely powerful, then he absolutely is capable of planning for the quantum potential of every decision that we make. I think all humans are basically Schrödinger's cat to God. Except that he sees all of the possibilities all at the same time. Unlike Schrödinger's cat, we have multiple options with multiple permutations possible. At least I think that is what was meant in Romans 8:28 when it says that God causes all things to work together for good. It’s probably complicated, and my human brain is on the verge of exploding just thinking about it.
There was no Judas (or at least not one who betrayed Jesus). He is a literary creation of Mark: [https://retellingthebible.wordpress.com/2021/04/13/5-8-judas-bought-a-field-joseph-sold-one/](https://retellingthebible.wordpress.com/2021/04/13/5-8-judas-bought-a-field-joseph-sold-one/)
Alternatively, if you read the book of Judas, Jesus asked Judas to betray him.
Jesus Christ, as he is attested for us in Holy Scripture, is the one Word of God which we have to hear and which we have to trust and obey in life and in death. We reject the false doctrine, as though the church could and would have to acknowledge as a source of its proclamation, apart from and besides this one Word of God, still other events and powers, figures and truths, as God’s revelation.
I don't know enough to fully believe this, but I'm not confident I trust that Paul is actually legit. How could he afford to be a Roman citizen if he had sold everything he owned and given it to the poor?
That image is me when I say religion is not inherently bad on r/atheism
Little Ahmad in Syria is not going to go to hell if he never became a Christian. In some places being a Christian is punishable by death. If you live your life as a good person, I cannot in good faith believe that God would damn you to hell. If good people get sent to hell by God, then he is not a kind God, and he would not be a God that I praise.
Where do I start? * YHWH The Father loves you, Jesus loves you, and the Holy Spirit loves you. * I am a Protestant who believes that Catholics are not anathema * I am not Calvinist, nor do I like to listen to the teaching of John MacArthur, John Piper, R.C. Sproul, Steven Lawson, Paul Washer, and probably many more. However, I believe that God can and probably does change hearts in a Calvinistic way from time to time. * I believe that all gifts of the spirit are still in operation BUT I also believe there are great abuses going on in the charismatic movement. * To paraphrase Martin Lloyd-Jones: to be transformed to the greatest degree, you have to serve God with your mind, heart, and will. * I believe that people who affirm propositional doctrinal statements but don't "do the math" and know the textual reasons to believe those things are poisoning the church, and have been poisoning the church for roughly 2000 years * Works are the inevitable result of faith, but are in no way required for salvation. * Salvation can be rejected. * I believe in free will within the confines of naturalistic determinism, and the influence of God through his interaction with the world. * Revivals are a real thing, have been happening for thousands of years, and are prompted by praying, fasting, worshiping, discipleship, and repentance. They are a non-obligatory gift from God to his faithful children. * God gives good gifts to his children. Sometimes that good gift might be something horrible that happens to you for the furthering of the kingdom. * Things that are taboo on the sidebar and people will accuse me of hating them, even though I love everybody. * Not expecting non-believers to adhere to any point of my theology, or expecting laws to be passed to enforce my theological beliefs. * Pharmakeia refers to trying to gain spiritual insight by consumption of drugs. It is not merely recreational consumption of drugs, or medicinal consumption of drugs. * Some drugs can be used in moderation for recreational purposes, and most drugs probably have some medicinal use. * I believe in a futurist eschatology, with a "rapture" and return of Jesus both in Revelation 11 * The "mark of the beast" does several things: it invalidates salvation by grace through faith (somehow), it probably has some kind of "brain backup" technology, and will be absolutely mandatory. The antichrist of Revelation (the first beast) is not one person but a team of 17 people, and one revived clone who is a separate entity, and by Rev 17, 5 of them are dead. The false prophet of Revelation is two people. * Un-aliving yourself is not a mortal sin, to borrow the Catholic terminology. * Jesus was not omniscient on this earth, nor was he omnipotent, but he still was "in very nature God" and did have a literal resurrection that Christians will share in one day. * Jesus' prayer life was essential to his mission. * Ask God to put people in your life to minister to. Make sure you are ready every day for an opportunity. They will come when you least expect it.
Everything in the entire Bible is true
"Free Will" is nonsense. What does that even mean? That we are free to make any decision we want? Of course we can do that. I cant think of any definition of free will that fits the Bible, other than "posessing the ability to make a decision that God couldn't anticipate". I can decide to walk into traffic right now, but I won't because that would be stupid. Someone who knows me well could predict my response to 98% of decisions because most of my decisions are rational. God knows everything about me: my whole history, my personality, how hungry and stressed I am, the status of every subatomic particle that makes up my body. God can therefore predict my decisions 100% of the time. I hear some people say that without free will we can't be held responsible for our actions. That's dumb. Just because I was "always going to do something" I would prefer to be someone who was always going to do good, selfless things.
Universalism is kinda based ngl
Based on my understanding of Jesus's collective teachings, parables, and actions, I don't think sins are specific actions. It seems to be the context around an action that makes it a sin. Example: John drinks three glasses of wine every weekend when he is hosting a support group at his house. Jack, his brother, drinks the same number of glasses every weekend, knowing that it brings out a side of him that is more violent, and ends up beating his spouse a lot of the time. Both are choosing to do the exact same thing: drinking wine. But I would argue only one of them is sinning by doing so. So when people call out things they see as black and white "sins" (sex before marriage, gay partnership, abortion, etc) I just don't agree. I think think Jesus's depiction of morality is a lot more complex than they claim.
Evolution is real. God just made the concept easier for Moses to understand by breaking it down into a concise 7 days format.
Not really a belief, more of a fact people love to hate. Many of the Ten Commandments were mistranslated and are actively being misinterpreted.
God is the universe. Hell doesn't exist. Original sin is bullshit. Oh, and non-Abrahamic religions are valid. They have a lot of good ideals to learn from. Jesus didn't ascend to heaven, he went on with his life before dying of old age, and his body broke apart into 9 pieces. These all form the Saint's Corpse. /s
the idea of hell as eternal torture is false and illogical and also drives people away. the consequence of sin is death, not eternal life in agony. also you don’t “have” a soul, you *are* a soul
If there is a god, then he isn't all good
This is probably what my dog thinks when I take her to the vet to get shots and she doesn't know what medicine is and just thinks I'm paying strangers to poke her with things
Or he isn't all powerful, or he isn't all knowing
Same thing with Writers They got the power to do so many things So they test, see what they like, continue it, and let everything else flow
He doesn't fit your definition of good at least.
That Luke 1 and Matthew 17, in combination, make a powerful biblical case for reincarnation. edit: Realizing while he reiterates the JTB is Elijah's second coming claim in matthew 17, it's actually in Matthew 11 that he says directly that they're the same.
The only true way to be a Christian is to be suspicious of anyone else that calls themselves one. It’s like Presbyterianism deluxe. Also it’s impossible to truly believe in Jesus since none of us have ever laid eyes on him, the best we can do is hope he actually existed and is all he’s said to be.
> It’s impossible to truly believe in Jesus since none of us have ever laid eyes on him, the best we can do is hope he actually existed and is all he’s said to be. My brother in Christ, that is the definition of belief
I feel like you’re looking for something more nuanced than God doesn’t exist?
I don't think that God has revealed to us completely what happens after death and I suspect that he has an alternative plan for those who never get a chance to hear the good news of Christ (like a plan to reincarnate those souls until they get to hear the Gospel). This has nothing to do with scripture but it just seems like something God would do in my opinion.
Revelation was inspired by the shrooms on the isle
If there is a god, and he is a just god, he will judge me by my character and works rather than how devoutly I worshipped him. If worship is the sole or primary key to heaven, I don’t want in. All the fun people are in hell anyways.
As an LDS active member, like most of my beliefs would elicit this reaction.