As simple as possible to summarize the best way you can, first, please. Feel free to expand after, or just say whatever you want lol. Honest question.
In times of peace, I’m agnostic. In times of christofascism, I’m militantly atheist. People go to church or talk to God because it is an existential crisis. They are just scared of dying. Momento Mori.
I don’t believe in the Christian god because there are too many contradictions and I don’t think the divine truth is corruptable. Anything so corrupt it doesn’t even agree with itself cannot be divine truth.
contradictions
Like what
I see a fair amount of Christian-related posts in your post history so I’m gonna go ahead and suggest that this is probably a conversation you don’t want to have. I’m trying not to be an asshole here, but I am very well read on the subject of Christianity, so suffice to say that contradictions exist, they are widely known, and I find Christian apologia on the subject wholly unconvincing.
That said, if I’m really the person you would like to go on this journey of discovery about your religion with then I will take you, but I can’t say that you are very likely to enjoy the results.
As a Christian I would like you to try to rock my world.
You are welcome to read the thread below, I’ve laid out my issues here, but it looks like we might get a proper conversation going if you want to keep reading.
I’m an Orthodox Christian our theology (which is that of the first thousand years) is likely different from anything you take issue with from Catholic or Protestant traditions in regard to soteriology, ecclesiology, sanctification etc
It’s great that you have interest in Christianity but Orthodoxy leans on 2000 years of scholarship and tradition. With all due respect you’re not going to ask any new questions or bring up any novel points. I don’t claim to be an expert but have Orthodox resources I can draw from.
Fair point. I am not very familiar with Orthodox Christianity at all, save a little of the very early history. You also sound fairly well-educated on the subject, which makes you twice over not the usual kind of person who responds to my comments about religion.
So, first, let me apologize for making assumptions; the usual kind of person I get is an American evangelical protestant who hasn’t read most of his or her own bible and is of the opinion that anything important for them to know would be whispered on the wind directly into their ear by god himself, so they have a pretty dim view of learning in general, but also of learning about their religion in specific. That’s clearly not you. My bad.
Second, it’s my understanding that Orthodoxy (probably not the right word, my bad) uses fundamentally the same scriptures as Catholicism and Protestantism, with some additions to the Old Testament. My issues come from the bible’s descriptions of god, events, and people, so I’m going to assume there’s enough common ground that my these translate to Orthodoxy as well as the others. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
I have 3 core issues with Christianity:
- Original sin: imposing the consequences of one person’s actions on others is called collective punishment and it’s a war crime, and needless to say baking a metaphysical war crime into the very heart of a religion - its origin story - is just not ever going to fly with me. It certainly doesn’t help that this is further complicated by #2.
- Omniscience/free will: either god is omniscient (lit: all knowledge, which includes perfect knowledge about the future) and free will is impossible so we can’t choose to love god, or he isn’t omniscient. His claims about moral authority are held together by this linchpin, and honestly either way it falls doesn’t look great. If we can’t choose to love god then punishing us for ‘choosing’ otherwise is effectively god punishing others for his own crimes since he made us unable to choose otherwise, so we’re right back on the war crimes train. If he’s not omniscient then he doesn’t have a plan, can’t judge sin in the hearts of men, etc. Is he even still a god at that point? Also that would make him a liar, which again is not a great foundation upon which to build a claim to moral authority.
- Vengeful/loving god: the Old Testament is full of examples of god as an angry, petty, vengeful tyrant, only for him to change his ways or something in the New Testament and be all about love. There are exceptions in both, obviously, so I’m referring to general trends. I think Jesus had some great ideas (best summed up by Bill & Ted as, ‘Be excellent to each other’), but the rest reads like infantile revenge-porn. And I’m not buying that ‘hate the sin, love the sinner’ thing either (that’s probably an evangelical thing), because god sure wasn’t raining fire and brimstone and calling for the wholesale slaughter of the sins, that was inflicted upon the sinners. And their sin mostly seems to boil down to not believing in god.
These, to me, seem like unsolvable, unavoidable paradoxes. I see two paths when faced with them:
- I’m forced to admit that the ‘perfect eternal Divine Truth’ is neither perfect nor eternal (re:god’s nature purportedly changing) and therefore also not true.
- What is being passed off as divine truth was either created or corrupted (which doesn’t necessarily imply malicious intent; simple error will suffice) by flawed humans and thus is also not true.
I don’t begrudge people who believe or find comfort in it, mind you, but it’s not for me. I’m searching for Truth, not a search for ‘it’s probably not true but I guess it’s a nice idea?’
First of all “Orthodoxy” is accepted as a shorthand referent to Orthodox Christianity so no issues there.
Secondly no worries on the assumptions I also anticipate Protestant hand waving when it comes to certain topics such as canonicity.
Now for your core issues…
- Original Sin - This is where Orthodoxy is different from everyone else. The Orthodox perspective is that the guilt of Adam and Eve’s sin is theirs alone. The consequence of their sin, death, is inherited however. This factors into the sotieriology (e.g. salvation doctrine) of the Church. The nature of man entered a state of fallenness due to the sin of Adam and Eve. Since God cannot be in the presence of sin Adam and Eve had to be expelled from the garden. This expulsion brought with it struggles such as the pain of childbirth, toil, hunger, sickness etc. This is, however, a mercy because despite entering a fallen state humanity has an opportunity to sanctify itself in this life and rejoin with God in death. This is a unique feature to humanity. Heavenly beings are in a static state. It is why Satan is jealous of humanity because the state of his soul cannot be changed and he will be eternally damned. The human soul can no longer change its spiritual state when this life ends. Human beings for all the struggles they have on earth can persevere in their faith and enter the Kingdom when they repose.
- Omniscience/Free Will - This is a false dichotomy and is highly dependent on what you mean by free will. Just because God knows all things doesn’t mean he orchestrates all things (e.g. foreknowledge ≠ predestination). God is incomprehensible and operates outside of time. This is part of what makes God a transcendent all powerful being. Furthermore because the Orthodox don’t believe in Original Sin the theological allowance for how man moves and works in the world is different. Man can live in the world and freely choose between Good and Evil. Salvation is achieved through a process of working together with the Holy Spirit in all aspects of life. This process is called Theosis.
Orthodoxy doesn’t conceive of God’s knowledge as something that competes with human will. Because God is not bound by time, His knowledge isn’t predictive—it’s participatory. We remain free precisely because God allows our freedom to unfold within His omniscient love. This is the mystery of synergy with the Holy Spirit.
What we perceive as logical already presupposes the existence of God, because logic itself depends on the existence of objective truth. If God is bound by created laws, He ceases to be God; He is the source of all order, not subject to it.
- Vengeful/loving god - This is primarily a postmodern critique of scripture by people like Richard Dawkins although ancient Marcionites and Gnostics love this critique as well. The Orthodox wholly reject this critique as a shallow reading of scripture that does not take into account the context of passages in and of themselves or scripture in its entirety. While God does render punishment in the Old Testament he is also endlessly loving despite being heartbroken by the wayward sins of his people who repeatedly abandon him for other Gods that can’t save them. There is love and wrath in both the OT and the NT. (e.g. OT - Jonah, God saving Nineveh when they repent; NT - Jesus over-turning tables of Money Changers) This is more of a squishy critique than the other two so I’m not sure what else to add.
Two paths forward…
I’m forced to admit that the ‘perfect eternal Divine Truth’ is neither perfect nor eternal (re:god’s nature purportedly changing) and therefore also not true.
The revelation of God is one that compounds on the past. Creation, Expulsion, Punishment, Enrichment, Liberation, Exile etc until you reach God incarnate in the form of Jesus Christ who uses the history of human failures to illustrate the grace of God and the establishment of a new covenant that saves all people. This is a logical progression.
What is being passed off as divine truth was either created or corrupted (which doesn’t necessarily imply malicious intent; simple error will suffice) by flawed humans and thus is also not true.
I haven’t seen a compelling case that divine truth has been fundamentally corrupted. It seems more a result of your sentiment than a critical analysis.
I recognize you may disagree with the points I adequately communicated or have questions about ones I failed to describe well. I am a fallible human after all 😂. You may find that many of the contradictions you’re grappling with don’t exist in Orthodox thought in the same way they might in some Western traditions. I’d encourage looking into Orthodox apologia for a perspective not burdened by the theological inheritances of later Western heresies like penal substitution or strict determinism…
An aside about “war crimes” – I will not expound on this too much because it’s a whole separate topic but be wary of using a modern lens when assessing the ancient. You’re smuggling in a moral framework to critique a metaphysical one. It’s easy to forget that secular ethical ideas such as “war crimes” typically find their origin in Christian morality to begin with (at least in the West). What is the epistemic justification for Good and Bad in a world where everything is relative? Philosophically it is an arbitrary critique without grounding.
Re:Orthodoxy - fair enough.
Original Sin
The Orthodox perspective is that the guilt of Adam and Eve’s sin is theirs alone. The consequence of their sin, death, is inherited however.
Ok, that’s an interesting take. If man is not guilty of the sin of Adam then why does he bear the consequences of the act? Why punish someone for something you don’t believe they did?
Since God cannot be in the presence of sin Adam and Eve had to be expelled from the garden.
Yeah but then he followed them around? Adam praises god on the birth of his sons, they give offerings to god and even talk to him, etc. And if Adam’s sin is transmitted to all mankind then Cain and Abel were sinful too, so it kinda seems like god didn’t have a problem being in the presence of sin?
This is, however, a mercy because despite entering a fallen state humanity has an opportunity to sanctify itself in this life
This doesn’t fly with me, because god created Adam and Eve as they were and they (assuming omniscience) couldn’t choose to do otherwise. So not only is god punishing them for a sin of his own making, he’s punishing everyone else despite, in the Orthodox version, them not being guilty of that sin. And then to call pain and suffering a mercy because it gives us the ‘opportunity’ to ‘earn’ back what you took? Nah, I’ll take a hard pass on that one. Sin but not guilt is kind of worse actually. It’s like telling your kid, ‘I know your brother was the one who took the cookie, but I’m going to spank you for it too.’ See also: pettiness and tyranny.
Heavenly beings are in a static state … the state of [Satan’s] soul cannot be changed
If it was static, how did it change from ‘angelic’ to ‘damned’ or whatever after his act of rebellion? Was it the act itself that somehow changed the unchangeable, or did god decide to rewrite reality just this once? If that’s the case, rewriting someone’s soul just so you can eternally punish them for one mistake is kind of a dick move.
Free Will
This is a false dichotomy and is highly dependent on what you mean by free will.
I don’t think so, though I concede that there might be definitions of free will that render it thus, I’m using the pretty common definition of having the ability to make choices.
Just because God knows all things doesn’t mean he orchestrates all things … foreknowledge ≠ predestination
I whole-heartedly disagree, foreknowledge precisely equals predestination. He doesn’t have to orchestrate things; merely knowing ahead of time that I will turn left instead of right at the next intersection means that it is definitionally impossible for me to turn right. If I was able to turn right anyway that would definitionally preclude foreknowledge: you can’t know that I turned left if I turned right.
God is incomprehensible and operates outside of time.
Even if I grant this for the sake of argument, humans do not operate outside of time so foreknowledge of human futures, again definitionally, must necessarily be knowledge about the future of the time that humans operate in. But even if that wasn’t true, if god exists outside of time then he also definitionally exists outside of causality and cannot influence or be influenced by human choices within time, which precludes foreknowledge of human futures.
Furthermore because the Orthodox don’t believe in Original Sin the theological allowance for how man moves and works in the world is different. Man can live in the world and freely choose between Good and Evil. Salvation is achieved through a process of working together with the Holy Spirit in all aspects of life. This process is called Theosis.
Ok, I’ll take your word for it, but according to the most widely-accepted definitions if man is free to choose then god cannot have forenkowledge of those choices.
Because God is not bound by time, His knowledge isn’t predictive—it’s participatory. … We remain free precisely because God allows our freedom to unfold within His omniscient love.
If he’s not outside of causality (as implied by the participatory element here) then he’s not outside of time, because those two things mean effectively the same thing. You say he allows it out of love, I say he allows it out of lack of foreknowledge, because that’s the only thing that is logically consistent.
What we perceive as logical already presupposes the existence of God, because logic itself depends on the existence of objective truth.
Logic doesn’t presuppose god, it merely presupposes consistency. Objective truth can arise from the structure of reality itself without requiring a divine source. We have mountains of evidence that logic is internally self-consistent; that’s not the case for pretty much any holy book I’ve read.
Vengeful/loving God
This is primarily a postmodern critique of scripture by people like Richard Dawkins
That doesn’t render it invalid. Also: primarily, but not uniquely as you point out; I was personally puzzling over this stuff back in the 80s before anyone but the editors of a few science journals had ever heard of Richard Dawkins.
The Orthodox wholly reject this critique as a shallow reading of scripture that does not take into account the context of passages in and of themselves or scripture in its entirety.
I don’t dispute that he is also loving, I dispute that he is exclusively loving as of the New Testament. He just goes on and on about how vengeful and angry he is in the OT, and there’s some of that in the NT too, though I think it’s all said by others since (IIRC, it’s been a while) god doesn’t really have a speaking part in much of the NT. Also I don’t think you get to send your PR team out to call you a ‘loving god’ after slaughtering innocents and children (and advocating the same) over and over again.
NT - Jesus over-turning tables of Money Changers
I wouldn’t count that as wrath, and I also wouldn’t attribute it to god. We know he’s capable of turning those tables over himself if he wanted to, but he didn’t. :P
This is more of a squishy critique than the other two
That’s fair, it’s definitely more of a vibe-check thing, I’m not sure there’s much space to discuss there.
(cont, TIL lemmy doesn’t have that high of a maximum post length.)
If you’re serious, there are so many. Here’s one of the first results I found in a search, but you can find so much writing on it if you want to, which if you actually believe you’re following the “truth” you should look into.
One of the most common fundamental contradiction arguments is the Judeo-Christian god is defined as omniscient and omnipotent, all knowing and all powerful, as well as benevolent. If this is true, why is there evil in the world? He’s omnipotent so must have the power to make a world in which it doesn’t exist, and he must be aware of whatever will happen in the world he creates, since he’s omniscient, and must not want evil to exist since he’s benevolent.
These cannot all be true. If they were then he’d create a world that satisfies his goals that does not have evil, which he must be capable of doing if he’s omnipotent. If evil must exist to accomplish his goals then he isn’t omnipotent. If he can’t detect evil will exist then he isn’t omniscient. If he wants evil to exist then he isn’t benevolent.
I viewed your link and randomly selected 4-5 of the “contradictions” and basic knowledge of the bible and historicity dispelled them. I’m not going to go through all 50. Sorry you get out what you put in lol. But I’ve heard many of them before and highly recommend the “Whole Counsel of God” podcast which walks through scripture verse by verse and addresses the most common Catholic, Protestant and Post-Modern critiques of scriptural “contradictions” which are typically due to bad theology, poor historicity, translation errors, cultural ignorance etc etc It’s also a great way to learn scripture in a deeper way.
If God exist why bad thing happen
This is a meme in Christian apologetic circles because non-Christians always think it’s a big own when it is really just a demonstration of a lack of understanding of what Christianity is actually about – Redemption. The story of how the world enters a fallen state is explained in Genesis. The fact that the world is fallen is critical to Christian theology and the process of sanctification.
God does not play by your rules. The struggles we face on Earth (often of our own creation) are for our salvation. This is what the bible and church tradition teaches.
I have a more expanded response in this thread here for some other points – https://lemmy.ml/post/30390799/18750134
This is a meme in Christian apologetic circles because non-Christians always think it’s a big own when it is really just a demonstration of a lack of understanding of what Christianity is actually about – Redemption.
It being a meme doesn’t mean there isn’t a reason for the argument. Redemption from what? Whatever it is, God had control over it happening. Why did it happen? He is trivially capable of creating a universe where there is no need to be redeemed. Why is one where redemption required the one he chose to create? Dismissing something as just being a meme does not actually answer the question.
God does not play by your rules. The struggles we face on Earth (often of our own creation) are for our salvation. This is what the bible and church tradition teaches.
The point is, God knew we would create the struggles. Is he omniscient? He knew it would happen. Is he omnipotent? He could have created a situation where it doesn’t happen. Is he benevolent? He wouldn’t want it to happen.
Yes, this is what the church teaches. I’m well aware. Does it make sense?
It being a meme doesn’t mean there isn’t a reason for the argument.
I understand. I’m more commenting on how it’s usually framed as a gotcha as if Christians have never thought of this before.
Redemption from what? Whatever it is, God had control over it happening. Why did it happen? He is trivially capable of creating a universe where there is no need to be redeemed. Why is one where redemption required the one he chose to create? Dismissing something as just being a meme does not actually answer the question.
The real answer to what is essentially the Epicurean “Problem of Evil” lies in Freedom and Love. God created human beings with genuine freedom, because only freely chosen love is real love. This means that the possibility of rejecting the good (e.g. evil) is not a flaw in creation but a necessary precondition for freedom.
The point is, God knew we would create the struggles. Is he omniscient? He knew it would happen. Is he omnipotent? He could have created a situation where it doesn’t happen. Is he benevolent? He wouldn’t want it to happen.
Yes. He is omniscient, omnipotent, and all-good. But benevolence doesn’t mean preventing every possibility of suffering. In the Orthodox view, God’s goodness is shown not in preventing freedom, but in enduring suffering with us, and transforming it into life and healing. God knew the risk of creation, yet chose to create and then chose to redeem through suffering love. That’s not negligence—that’s the Cross.
Yes, this is what the church teaches. I’m well aware. Does it make sense?
Not in a tidy, rationalistic way—and Orthodoxy is okay with that. There’s a deep apophatic element to the theology: the idea that not everything about God can be explained in human terms. But what does make sense in experience is the way the Church helps us encounter God through prayer, sacraments, and love. Evil isn’t ignored—it’s faced head-on, and transformed in Christ.
I understand. I’m more commenting on how it’s usually framed as a gotcha as if Christians have never thought of this before.
I think the questioning of it originally comes from Christians, so obviously that isn’t the case, nor is it what I’m saying.
The real answer to what is essentially the Epicurean “Problem of Evil” lies in Freedom and Love. God created human beings with genuine freedom, because only freely chosen love is real love. This means that the possibility of rejecting the good (e.g. evil) is not a flaw in creation but a necessary precondition for freedom.
The flaw here is he’s all powerful. If you believe the Adam and Eve story (and even if not it makes a good small case argument) he created the garden, created the tree and fruit, created the serpent, knew they’d eat the fruit, knew he’d damn them for it and they’d suffer for it, and chose to do this anyway. He trivially could also have created a world where they chose not to. Even when given the freedom of choice, he knows what choice will be made (since time is not relevant to him) and can set things up to create any outcome.
God knew the risk of creation, yet chose to create and then chose to redeem through suffering love. That’s not negligence—that’s the Cross.
It’s not a risk. He knew what would happen. He created something where this specific thing is what would come to be with fill awareness and decided that’s what he wanted, if it’s true. It’s not negligence, it’s indifference to suffering. There is no other option for it than that, since he could choose to have made something where it didn’t exist. Maybe we can’t imagine what that would be, but that’s what it means to be omnipotent.
But what does make sense in experience is the way the Church helps us encounter God through prayer, sacraments, and love.
Yeah, that’s fine if it helps you. However, every religion has this claim, so it isn’t evidence that it’s correct. That’s fine. Faith is by definition belief without evidence.
The flaw here is he’s all powerful. If you believe the Adam and Eve story (and even if not it makes a good small case argument) he created the garden, created the tree and fruit, created the serpent, knew they’d eat the fruit, knew he’d damn them for it and they’d suffer for it, and chose to do this anyway. He trivially could also have created a world where they chose not to. Even when given the freedom of choice, he knows what choice will be made (since time is not relevant to him) and can set things up to create any outcome.
You’re right to point out that God knew what would happen. In Orthodox theology, this is acknowledged—but it’s essential to distinguish foreknowledge from predetermination. God’s knows the outcome of free choices but doesn’t coerce them. His foreknowledge does not violate our freedom.
More importantly, God is not only omnipotent but all-good. And since God is the source of all goodness, the possibility of choosing anything other than God is the possibility of choosing evil—which is, by definition, a lack or distortion of the good. If we are to love God freely, we must be free to reject Him.
Therefore yes, God could have created a world where Adam and Eve never fell—but that would not be a world of genuinely free persons. It would be a world of perfectly programmed beings, and Orthodoxy insists that freedom is essential to personhood. Without it, love isn’t possible.
Also, it’s important to clarify: Orthodoxy does not teach that God “damned” humanity for the Fall. The consequence of sin is death and corruption, not divine vengeance. God’s response was not punishment but a rescue mission—the Incarnation. The “Tree of Life” returns in the Cross.
It’s not a risk. He knew what would happen. He created something where this specific thing is what would come to be with fill awareness and decided that’s what he wanted, if it’s true. It’s not negligence, it’s indifference to suffering. There is no other option for it than that, since he could choose to have made something where it didn’t exist. Maybe we can’t imagine what that would be, but that’s what it means to be omnipotent.
From our human perspective, it may seem this way. But God did not create evil or suffering—He permitted it as the cost of freedom, because only through freedom can there be love, growth, and communion. What matters is not just that suffering exists, but how God responds to it.
And His response is not indifference, but sacrificial love. In Christ, God enters our suffering, takes it upon Himself, and opens a path to life. The Cross is not God watching suffering from a distance—it’s God partaking and being the example for all of man for our sake.
Yeah, that’s fine if it helps you. However, every religion has this claim, so it isn’t evidence that it’s correct. That’s fine. Faith is by definition belief without evidence.
While it may not mean much to you I would be remiss not to defend Orthodoxy here. Faith isn’t blind belief or wishful thinking; it’s trust grounded in revelation, history, and experience. The resurrection of Christ, the lives of the saints, the enduring wisdom of the Church—these are not “proofs” in a modern empirical sense, but they are reasons for belief.
Furthermore I don’t know what your standards for evidence are but I encourage you to look at arguments like the Transcendental Argument for God. It argues that universals like logic, reason, and math are only justified if God exists. (e.g. X (God) is necessary for Y (logic, math etc). Y therefore X.)
If you deny God’s existence, you must account for the reliability of reason, logic, and abstract universals like mathematics. If these are simply “self-evident,” then you’re assuming the very thing your worldview has no means to justify. Furthermore without a transcendent source of rationality, why assume logic is binding or that it applies universally?
Believing in God is foundation to a worldview that relies on universals the alternative is arbitrarily granting yourself self-evident axioms.
Cos I’ve done drugs, and experienced heightened states of love, being, appreciation for nature and humanity, states that feel magical yet real, even if only temporarily.
The very fact those states of mind are achievable at all gives me a certain emotional grounding and inner certainty that reality has purpose, or at least meaning. As opposed to just being a happy accident of atoms and energy arranging themselves in this miraculous way to create life. That’s just a logical explanation of how, not why.
We’re almost all driven to look for meaning in life. Even if it’s just to “find your own purpose”, that journey presupposes you have one to begin with.
I guess I feel a belief in god without having much idea of what god is, or even what they want. But I don’t believe at all that logic, science, reason etc. are things you have to choose instead of religious belief. They’re things you have as well. You can’t square the two - the Rubik’s cube of logic doesn’t twist that way.
OK, our reality might have a purpose or meaning given by a god - but then what about that god’s purpose/meaning? Was it given by yet another one higher up? You can keep going up layers like this and finding meaning on each one, but eventually there has to be a final one, a reality that was not designed by anyone. But why does it exist?
Some people may say that there’s no proof that we actually exist. And maybe we don’t, but the fact that we can think and experience things means that even if our reality is somehow fake, there has to be one that isn’t. Because if nothing existed, there would be nothing at all. Not a void, just nothing, not even the possibility of existence. So something, at some level, must exist. But why?
“Because God created us” is not good enough for me, because it doesn’t answer anything. If we exist because a god created us, that still means that a god existed before us. Why does this god exists then?
We’ll never find out. Any answer we find will only open things up for new questions. And just like a child that is just starting to experience things, we’ll never run out of questions.
I think it’s the book of Job, God says something like “you could not possibly fathom the purpose or meaning to the world, even if someone tells you”. I think in much the same way a Turing Machine simply cannot process certain tasks or achieve particular ends, our brains are limited to a certain subset of understanding. Still mightily impressive what we can imagine/devise/understand IMO. In Islam, this is more readily accepted dogma: you can’t even imagine or picture God, so even attempting it is doomed to failure (or delusion)
I dont know. I am conflicted about it. If god exists why would he create all the suffering and pain? If he doesnt, all the world is just a probability game.
Makes me feel more assured and will reduce my suffering until I die. After my death, regardless of if I am right or wrong, the net positive of having had the soothing idea of a larger meaning can’t and won’t be retroactively undone. So why the hell not?
Because religion can be and has been used to convince people to do terrible things. The fewer false beliefs people hold the fewer things can be used to manipulate them in this way.
water can and has drowned people. i fail to see your point.
Yes, and that’s why we don’t allow people to flood school, hospitals and homes with water. It is controlled and diverted.
we also don’t refuse to allow people to have small amounts of it accessible to them at all times or call it absolutely bad outright just because when used in a malicious way or left to be uncontrollable in particular situations it can be dangerous. shrug.
I think most people think like this at their core regardless of class, status, label.
deleted by creator
How do you know that?
deleted by creator
I am genuinely curious what these conflicting attributes are in your view.
But also, from a dialectical lens, contradiction exists in all things in our own observable reality, from the lowest levels of the concept of movement to the highest levels of the organization of human society. Why would a seeming contradiction be proof that God cannot exist?
deleted by creator
But contradiction exists everywhere in our understanding of nature and the universe.
deleted by creator
Just for the sake of argument… According to what standard? Yours? Why should we follow your standard?
I don’t believe it would. Perfection can, and insofar as perfection exists in our reality does, exist alongside perceived contradiction as contradiction exists in all things.
In some sort of greater being yes, in any kind of church or following no.
I find I have my own belief in some unknown cosmic entitys, something along the lines of energy is always in a state of flow, life and death, rocks to dust, consciousness to the sprawling reaches of the universe a bit of new age spirituality stuff,
That’s kind of where I am with it. Anything human led is suspect and I think any resemblance to “Jesus church” is long gone. I want to believe but I struggle with God being “just” but also allowing so much injustice.
If I had to put myself somewhere I believe in God but my faith for the rest of it is dwindling.
For me “God” isn’t some person with wits and thoughts.
It is just the circumstances in where we live. The time the physics the vibration and energy filling the matter and thoughts.
There is no need in praying to it (except for you self). We’re in a happy stream full of energy filled with feeling “souls” going into the same direction in time and filling this strange place where we feel energy as matter, waves and colors.
You cannot have a painting without an artist. A sculpture without a sculpture. A tool will never use itself, it takes a user.
Imagine a blank and static universe. Someone had to add or move something to start the initial reaction even if they never play a part in the events after.
In some sense there is a creator. I just don’t know in what capacity.
If you zoom out on the universe it’s almost pure noise. Does that resemble what you’d expect from a designer? I guess it could be designed, but there’s also no reason to indicate that if pure randomness is also expect to create the same things.
I am unsure of the capacity of a designer, constructor, what label you want to call an input. To have noise there must be an initial force to create it regardless of its structure, randomness, pattern, form. A big bang, literally anything we may never know. But if the universe was static and blank with no energy or anything just a black sand box. There would be no noise until a reaction happened.
I have never seen something come from nothing. I don’t think anyone has ever or this question wouldn’t have been asked or even be in our consciousness.
I have never seen something come from nothing. I don’t think anyone has ever or this question wouldn’t have been asked or even be in our consciousness.
Well, particle and anti-particle pairs come into existence from nothing all the time actually. They typically annihilate though.
But they don’t come into existence without an outside force. Those are first and second parties reacting. Who’s the 3rd, 4th, 5th, END/START? Edit: Who spurs them into existence? Even if these pairs form and the sum is zero once the +1 and - 1 clash and the game zero sums. Who started or what started the spark something cannot come from nothing, this just means science must not have discovered the root cause of your equation. That is/was my only point. If things in the beginning were static, no movement, no input or output, someone/something adding an object, or kick off to start all of the events after whether they were involved or not. Just speaking on the OPs creator terms and not digressing into free will vs destiny.
Who started or what started the spark something cannot come from nothing…
No, they happen in relation to other things happening, but nothing creates them, especially not a someone. They just pop into existence. Why is that so hard to believe? Is it any less believable than needing some supernatural force to cause it? What created them? That wouldn’t answer any questions anyway, so why would that be more believable.
https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/something-from-nothing/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
If things in the beginning were static, no movement, no input or output…
Things weren’t static. They just weren’t in general. Before the universe started and space-time came into existence, there was no space or time. There is no before, and there’s no where to be static. At some point it just existed, not at any time, since time didn’t exist. It’s hard, or rather impossible, to really hold the concept in your mind because we can’t imagine a timelessness, but that seems to be the case.
Those were wild reads, not only that but further study of the entire subject. I spent the last day combing the internet and it is very heavy stuff.
I see and understand the process from nothing to something which I didn’t previously have using matter and anti matter alongside other energy. Using quantum energy and all it entails given current science. Allowing different particles and matter to seemingly pop in and out is interesting and has came a long way since I last got educated. Its constant.
That being said nothing science offers yet, gives an answer to my/or OPs creator question. Because regardless of theory and concepts and their are a ton! Science is all based on some form of pre existing structure, law, and or potential, and never absolutely nothing. We lack the models, proof, testing capabilities. The biggest models are string theory, and loop quantum gravity. Inside of the there are many concepts zero point energy, Tegmark, Loop Bounce, Vilenkin, Holographic origin, and on and on currently being evaluated.
That leaves us currently having no truth to your view or mine, a stalemate for now. Without a new paradigm it’s possibly unknowable.
Can anyone make sense of this post? It looks like unintelligible symbols crammed together to me.
Hmm. I think you can’t have those things without an observer. Art, beauty and utility are in the eye (or hand) of the beholder, and apt to appear anywhere.
In fact, nature has some of the best art. And our art is almost as good. Does it mean we are almost god? Does beauty signify gods presence? It is very harsh to the less graceful people that have hearts of gold
Nature is the best art. Nothing a human could produce lasts a comparable scale of time, force, evolution, as nature. I think as a civilization we need to harness more of natures principles. Atleast until we can find another comparable medium that isn’t nature to process our problems. Which we have not done yet.
I agree. Except, compared to all other living beings, our art is special. Why is that? Why can Bob Ross teach how to capture it, not only on a visual level but on a visceral cathartic level, for painter and observer to intuit and interpret the signal of the majesty of nature, indeed often even framing a specific part of nature in a love letter that can riff on the concept and introduce fantastic concepts that may even refer to and provoke completely novel amalgamations of existing natural phenomenon and depict them fallably while ultimately even through text inspire a view of the majestic we couldn’t without the artist?
I agree with this. Whether life is a series of evolving or constant simulation, whatever form it takes for which we cannot form answers for yet. Something cannot come from nothing. I again just don’t know, nor does anyone the answer to OPs question.
Why someone? Why not something? Physics say a monopole magnet is mathematically possible, something like that would absolutely cause a disturbance because it doesn’t conform to the laws of physics we have defined like every action has an equal and opposite reaction… I think you’re right, something happened but I don’t know why it would be someone and not simply probability and the natural world conforming to that probability
I can’t answer every question especially pertaining to evolving science. I wouldn’t even try… I’m not religious either. To have something, someone or something had to create it that’s all I can muster on the subject. Can you create anything without touching, moving, manipulating by some outside force?
I don’t know how it happened, why, person or thing. All I can figure is if the universe was a blank sheet of paper, something had to add, kickstart, etc a reaction for things to unfold regardless of size, time or scale. I don’t really believe the universe at its utmost basic, blank canvas form voided form, simply has energy. It doesnt make sense. Energy requires input from some outside source.
Nothing in physics say that time has a beginning or end. It says in fact that it doesn’t have that.
It does not say anything about time starting, ending, or anything. It is just a set of rules that approximately reproduce results we observe. It is not the rules of the universe. The rules we use in physics actually do not have a direction for time. It works the same in both directions, though clearly time does have a direction. It does not make predictions on if time started or if it will end, only what is the case for what we can observe right here right now.
Um, yeah the interesting part is that while physics itself indicate time as a one dimensional infinite band, (with possibly branching multiverses but I digress) we as humans attribute a beginning and end, as all we know consists of such objects and entities. Our mind is terrible at grasping infinity, it has even broken many curious minds that try to understand it and are a bit too tenacious in their search. In any case that is my proposal here, that it is an unanswerable question how the universe started. We have facts up to big bang. It (as usual with these things) gives us just more questions than actual answers to how the universe came to exist. I argue that it always did and always will.
We have facts up to big bang. It (as usual with these things) gives us just more questions than actual answers to how the universe came to exist. I argue that it always did and always will.
I think this is faulty logic. How the universe came to exist is fine, and we don’t know, but that the universe “always existed” is a bit odd. You can’t have anything before space-time exists. In a sense that means yes, it “always” existed, because that’s the start of time, but in another sense it did not exist too, just time didn’t exist, if that makes sense. It obviously doesn’t really make sense because we’re unable to hold that concept in our mind, but time did come into existence.
Unless I have missed something huge, time didn’t ever not exist. If you refer to big bang, what evidence says time started then? Sounds really fascinating but I have never heard of it
How do you have time without space-time? The big bang is actually not the exact start of the universe. It’s pretty close, but not quite. It is the expansion of the universe. Before that it’s in a very dense high energy state, but it does exist. It explains how it went from this state to the current state, but not how it came into existence at all.
I don’t think it’s believed to have sat in this dense high energy state for infinite time before the big bang, so it must have come into existence, not just existed forever. If that’s the case that means space-time came into existence. You can’t have time without space-time, so there is no time before it exists. At some point space-time exists, and as such there is no before, since there is not time.
It seems odd to consider. How do things happen without space-time? We can’t really think about this concept, because we’re space-time beings. It doesn’t even make sense to consider. However, having an intelligence start things doesn’t help. It only then begs the question where they came from. Surely the universe just starting is more likely than an intelligence appearing for some reason, then it deciding to start the universe. That’s a vastly more complex set of circumstances.
I used to believe because of how convinced other people were. I thought they had a good reason. Turned out they had not
I think I believe in something more like… biology and physics working together in some way to create our existence. I had a near death experience once when I was in ICU for several months. I met, a… thing, it was like a large glowing spark but its light didn’t travel away from its self, its glowing was contained to its “body”. I asked “is that me?” and the “room” we were in was filled with a sense of “no” it’s taken me ten years to process that experience and be able to talk about it, idk what that spark was but I’ve come to accept I believe that is the All Thing, it’s the eternal spark all sentient life stems from, I do believe access to long term memory is critical for being a part of the All Thing not simply being animated biology, like a mosquito for example.
I think the All Thing animates biology as a way to experience the physical world because it must “live” somewhere and we are all avatars, our thoughts are only important in the sense that they lead us to experiences and forming memories. I believe in nonduality and that physics is actually the closest humans will ever get to describing a god, an All Thing
That’s very cool, I also feel like many who meet this kind of entity will more likely than not return a message or keep a wisdom relating to ego. It is not you, and yet encompasses you. Death is the ultimate drop of any ego and return to the light. And the experiences I have heard of and felt is the radiant compassion. That the compassion is overwhelming. The intensity of which of course makes makes lasting tracks and grooves in the mind of anyone.
The most calming and intense feeling is the knowledge that what is behind the veil of everything, is a warm bright love. That our home is a place we can know comes with a soft sigh of contentment where we can bathe in complete belonging and let go of our self.
If there is a god or something like a god, it has to be the sun. The sun makes all life possible and has near infinite energy, I can not think of anything more deserving to be god. Will it save us or help us as individuals, i don’t think so, its a god we are insignificant in comparison and will burn when staying in its presence for two long. Also its real.
Another idea I had was from Einsteins quote: “to believe in god you have everything to gain and nothing to lose.” So by that logic you better believe in all gods for maximum gain. There are a bunch more suns aswell ;)
In short, yes because you lose nothing by trying to emulate Jesus.
That said, the church be crazy af
I may not believe in God, but I can definitely respect the man. ✊
If emulating jesus was what the christian church was about I would have less scrupules
Define “Christian Church”. This almost invariably comes from former evangelicals in my experience.
People who say they belive in jesus, would be my definition.
You have to believe in the trinity to be a Christian. Regardless you aren’t going to find any group of people who are perfect. Christianity is all about how people are sinful and must commit daily to emulating Christ even though they will continuously fail. Regardless it sounds like you are opening yourself up for massive disappointment by casting such a wide net. There are many “Christian churches” which are just jokes if not outright scams. Christians can’t control who calls themselves a Christian. I encourage you to investigate the Eastern Orthodox church which has a rich tradition and clear direction for how the Orthodox should live their lives. It is Ancient Christianity that holds in high esteem prayer, fasting and alms giving. There is real spiritual meat on the bone.
I’m LDS some people might call us Mormon.
The short of it is I asked God and I felt his presence. Not like any earthly feeling, more like the burning the bible / new testament describes.
But even without any of that I’d still have believed / known. I just, always have if that makes sense? I might’ve gone a different direction in my beliefs but I’d still have known he’s there.
Does it feel correct that there are levels of heaven, better and worse heavens on other planets? I always felt this is disturbing to me, but it makes sense what you are saying
Not so much “levels of heaven” in that anyone’s values lesser than others. It’s that God understands his children, he understands we’re all different. I like a plain pepperoni pizza. Some people like supreme pizza, some people God forbid like pineapple on their pizza.
He’s not going to force one person or another into this route definition of “heaven” because supreme pizza may not be heaven, nor plain pepperoni or pineapple.
Sorry if that analogy doesn’t make sense.
No, no it definitely makes sense and btw pineapple on pizza is heavenly (pun intended) but I have always thought and heard from my Mormon friends that they can “work harder” on faith and then come closer to God in the afterlife as a “reward” (this is just me paraphrasing violently) and I found that kind of offensive, as I feel most religions and absolutely Christianity as a whole make a big deal of being equal children of God. Like if you wanted to sit next to Jesus you better work your ass off in your life. It is probably wrong, I understand, but even the idea of a hierarchy in a spiritual setting is for me incredibly offensive
I have always wanted to ask someone who has this opinion how they confront the knowledge that people from every religion have felt the same thing? Some people have felt this way multiple times about mutually exclusive faiths.
That’s one of the largest things that led me to be an agnostic atheist (meaning I don’t claim to have knowledge, and I hold no belief in a god; I don’t disbelieve, it’s the ascence of belief). I was raised non-denomination Christian, but I had a good Buddhist friend in high school. It made me curious about other faiths, and they’re almost all mutually exclusive, yet every one has people certain they’re correct. What are the odds I was born to a family that believed the correct one?
I’m not self-centered enough to believe I’m special and all the other people are just unlucky, so the result is that it’s most likely I wasn’t born lucky, and neither was anyone else. So many religions have faded out of existence, so the odds are if any are correct they don’t exist anymore. Why would I think I happen to find the right one?
I know this is unlikely, but I’d be interested to hear an actual opinion about how that feels, not hearing about what you’re supposed to believe (which I’ve heard before). I think it’s interesting to know if it makes others feel the same way I once did or not.
So, for the sake of this post isn’t “I’m trying to convert you to my religion” I’m going to try and summarize our points of belief while more or less answering your question, and I’m not doing it out of a debate, but merely to answer you :)
It’s not really “we think we’re lucky or better than anyone else” hell we actually believe that God is a God of fairness that doesn’t value one person over another. Ie. “We are all his children and he loves us equally” is a core belief we hold. And as apart of that belief, we firmly hold it true that God will ensure that all his children who lived or died without hearing his gospel will have the opportunity too. That’s point 1
Point 2. Yes you can most certainly have spiritual experiences outside of the LDS faith or any faith for that matter. We tend to refer to that as “The light of Christ” but for a summarized explanation. We basically summarize that as, a testimony of truth wherever it may be found God will bare witness of it.
And I also tend to lean towards a lot of Buddhist tenants myself btw. The concept of a state of being called Nirvana, that life is suffering (Though I know that’s not exactly what he said) and a few other ideas they hold I agree with.
It’s not really “we think we’re lucky or better than anyone else” hell we actually believe that God is a God of fairness that doesn’t value one person over another. Ie. “We are all his children and he loves us equally” is a core belief we hold. And as apart of that belief, we firmly hold it true that God will ensure that all his children who lived or died without hearing his gospel will have the opportunity too.
I’m going to question this a bit if you don’t mind. Doesn’t the LDS church teach that there are different “degrees of glory” and only the followers of the church’s faith can reach the celestial kingdom? Yes, there’s exception for those who haven’t heard, but those who have and didn’t follow the teachings are left out, even though there doesn’t seem to be anything different about proofs of faith provided by followers of the LDS or any other religion. They seem to be the same veracity as followers of any other religion.
And I also tend to lean towards a lot of Buddhist tenants myself btw. The concept of a state of being called Nirvana, that life is suffering (Though I know that’s not exactly what he said) and a few other ideas they hold I agree with.
Yeah, I think it’s great to learn about other religions so we can take pieces of them that help us. Even if I don’t believe any are any more likely to be true than the others, there’s “truths” in all of them that apply whether you follow the faith or not.
So, A LOT of LDS and even other faiths make this mistake about our beliefs.
Yes, we do believe in “Kingdoms of Glory” just as we believe in God having a law, commandments, etc. That being said, the LDS faith is at its core, quite different from other faiths in that we don’t believe in your classical “Hell fire and damnation”
Just to clarify this for any other Christian denominations, aside from our other teaching’s where a lot of this comes from is this:
John 14:2:
In my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
1st Corinthians 41:
There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
With that all being said. The biggest misconception and frankly appalling misunderstanding anyone makes in this, is that one person is valued less than another.
Our firm faith is that, by living the precepts of God you can make it to the celestial kingdom, IE. The highest degree of glory, but that that’s only provided through the Atonement of Jesus Christ ie. It’s not our works that “buy our way into heaven” it’s entirely through Christ and his Atonement.
That is paramount.
Second. We don’t believe God has a “cool kids list” or a list of rules you had to follow, and if you didn’t. Lol sucks to be you.
We believe that God judges based on the person and their intentions, not solely by their actions. IE. It’s not black and white. Otherwise, how could the Atonement claim to be all-encompassing?
Kingdoms of Glory then becomes a choice we can make to get to. Like in my other comment. Some people will prefer pepperoni, some supreme, some pineapple.
But all will be happy and in a heavenly state regardless. And no one person is left out of receiving the happoness they prefer.
With that all being said. The biggest misconception and frankly appalling misunderstanding anyone makes in this, is that one person is valued less than another.
Aren’t they though, by definition?
Value: An amount, as of goods, services, or money, considered to be a fair and suitable equivalent for something else; a fair price or return.
So if some people get more in return (what they get in the afterlife for accepting The Lord), they’re valued higher. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I think what you mean is you don’t think some people are, in essence, better. Just the degrees of glory mean some are valued more though, and that’s not going into the husband/wife aspect.
Kingdom’s of Glory then becomes a choice we can make to get to. Like in my other comment. Some people will prefer pepperoni, some supreme, some pineapple.
Yes, it’s a choice, but some people get nicer outcomes based on their choice, and that choice is not made any more obviously correct than the choice of any other religion.
If God is good, why would he make us make this choice and make it just a guessing game? I know the answer you’re likely to give is that it isn’t, and if we pray the answer will be made clear, but people believe with extreme faith (often more than most in the LDS have) that they’re the ones who believe the truth, and they’re certain that they’ve felt the presence of God(s) and they told them to follow this or that faith.
It’s not really a guessing game, it’s a there’s his gospel, we follow his gospel and we’re rewarded, which he will ensure everyone has an opportunity to, or they can choose otherwise and receive the level of reward they so desire. No one’s going to force somebody to live in a specific way; That’s against the point.
And God is good because he gives us a choice. Choice means we can become our own individuals, make our own mistakes, learn, and grow. Which to us is the fundamental answer to the purpose of this life. (Buddhism “Life is Suffering”) Otherwise, what’s the point of it all? We’d be hollow machines, always living in a good but un-understanding state of being with no opportunities to grow and move forward.
It’s not really a guessing game, it’s a there’s his gospel, we follow his gospel and we’re rewarded, which he will ensure everyone has an opportunity to, or they can choose otherwise and receive the level of reward they so desire. No one’s going to force somebody to live in a specific way; That’s against the point.
It’s my understanding that if we know of it in this world and deny it then that’s the choice we make, correct? If so, and if all other religions claim the same veracity with the same level of proof/evidence, what makes it different than a guessing game?
And God is good because he gives us a choice. Choice means we can become our own individuals, make our own mistakes, learn, and grow. Which to us is the fundamental answer to the purpose of this life. (Buddhism “Life is Suffering”) Otherwise, what’s the point of it all? We’d be hollow machines, always living in a good but un-understanding state of being with no opportunities to grow and move forward.
I’m currently having a discussion with someone else in this thread about this basically. Yes we’re given freedom to choose, but God created the world exactly how he wanted, with the knowledge of everything that would result, with the power to make literally anything happen, right? If he wanted to he could have created a world where we all freely choose the right thing, even when given the ability to choose the wrong thing. Not machines programmed to choose the right thing, just an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent designer who sets things up to fall into place perfectly.
The example I just used in that other comment is like setting up dominos. You don’t decide the physics of how they’ll fall, you just intelligently set them up so they fall the way you want. If you’re omnipotent and omniscient then this is trivial for you, and you must be able to do this for people’s choices such that they just always choose the right thing. If you’re benevolent then this is what you want. You still make just as many choices, but they just all happen to be good.
Also, thanks for the excellent questions! I love having friendly discussions with other people who believe differently. It really opens up my perspective. Hell, I served an LDS mission in Seattle Washington. If there’s one thing I cherish, it’s my conversations with those of other faiths and learning more about their perspectives.
This is why a “feeling” should not be the reason you convert to a religion. You should be skeptical of Christians that argue their conversion on feelings alone. I certainly had feelings that I attribute to the Holy Spirit when I was an inquiring Christian but I frankly tried to ignore or diminish them to stay sober minded. Relying entirely on emotionalism or charism is historically discouraged as you could just as easily be swayed by demonic forces (e.g. prelest). It’s one of many critiques of charismatic Protestantism and the LDS church.
Everyone on earth that has adopted or converted to any religion has done so with a feeling as their reason. Nobody has ever converted due to cold hard facts or some research on the afterlife. Proof is unexisting by definition of faith.
Everyone on earth that has adopted or converted to any religion has done so with a feeling as their reason.
Assertion
Nobody has ever converted due to cold hard facts or some research on the afterlife.
Applying material requirements to the metaphysical and transcendental
Proof is unexisting by definition of faith
Transcendental Argument for God makes an affirmative pre-suppositional argument for God.
I… Yes? That’s a correct interpretation, but you denied an answer to me. Or perhaps I misunderstood your position, that nobody should ever convert or consider any religion?
I’m saying that your assertion isn’t justified (e.g. it’s just a subjective opinion). That you can’t expect to apply the scientific method to something that transcends the material world and that there are indeed logical arguments for why someone should believe in God as opposed to not believing in God.
I’m an Orthodox Christian.
I don’t think you’re correct with your argument. Why would someone choose any particular religion? That’s the argument. There is no logical argument for that. There are arguments for choose one in general, although logically very flawed. Still, there’s no logical argument I’m aware of to choose a specific one.
No reason. I just do.
