/fringe/ - Fringe

Isa. 40:8

“The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.”

I Pet. 1:25 Also: Psalms 102:12, Luke 16:17

“But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.”

Mat. 5:18

“For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

Read these passages from the Bible and then read this: https://alwaysloved.net/2015/08/24/original-biblical-manuscripts-destroyed/

I am not sure I can continue to believe in Biblical inerrancy. I'm not going to just completely throw out the religion but at best I can only salvage it and then look to God to fill in the missing pieces.

>>135491

I take it you are from a protestant background?

>>135493

No.

Parents never read the bible, never spoke about religion, and never went to church.

What's a "Luther shill"?

>>135495

cringe

Posting in concern troll thread

If you want the opinions of believing Christians ask on >>>/christian/

>The foreskins issue

>Why didn't the God of the Bible just, right from the start, ask that they be circumcised of spirit?

It's typology, and he did. Circumcision was always a ritual that represented Israel as set apart, which they could only truly be inwardly.

With the new covenant things like this were fulfilled.

>Revelations

It's singular and there's nothing here in your post to engage with. I don't believe that you've actually read it, and the existence of competing interpretations of prophetic literature isn't an issue with the literature.

>Genesis.

>Wasn't this story written down originally in hieroglyphs?

What am I reading

>It is really hard to understand

Again you clearly haven't read it

It's the most straightforward book of the Bible to interpret because it's practically all historical prose

>The many names of God.

>it appears to me that religion simply evolved out of Polytheism

Presupposition

>Overall the Bible feels it's the history of the Jewish people

Anachronism

>It doesn't feel like it's the inspired word of God

Your feelings are not a trustworthy source of knowledge

>1 Samuel 18:25

And?

Saul sends David on a suicide mission but he triumphs. The foreskins are evidence of his victory with the double meaning of shaming the enemy.

tl;dr descent of the modernists

>>135491

Why would you want to undermine your Christian beliefs? I was raised in a Baptist church. As I got older, my faith didn't falter, but I would say my view of religion has reached a broader paradigm. There are many flavors of Christianity, from Baptists, to Methodists, Pentacostles, Lutherans, Presbytarian, Wesleyan, Orthodox, etc. There are many translations of the Bible from the KJV, NIV, NLT, NAS, etc. There are many names for God, be it Yahweh, Allah, El, Shaddai, etc. Is it the history of the jews? A large portion of it is, but it's the same with all Abrahamic religions. And all Abrahamic relgions have ties together. Even though the Bible says that no man should take away or add to the word of God, the Bible has been heavily edited. There are books that have been removed from canon because some important jew, Roman, or King decided it shouldn't be there.

Where does that leave you as a Christian? At the risk of sounding like an "All paths lead to God" type, if Monotheism is correct and there is only ONE CREATOR of this universe, then you should be able to learn all religions and let the spirit guide you in the direction that best suits God's plan for you.

What matters most, in my personal opinion, what Christianity boils down to, do you accept Jesus' sacrifice for your sin? Do you believe in God and wish to serve him and trust him with your soul? If so, you're in. People will argue that it's not that simple, but it is. If you're truly saved, you will live with the conviction of the Holy Spirit in your heart. That conviction will be your new conscience to lead you to good over evil. You'll likely feel bad about punching kids in the face and snorting lines of cocaine off a stripper's tits after you get saved. Likewise, you'll feel a sense of accomplishments when you do good deeds in the name of your Lord, like giving a homeless man a sandwich. This same conviction will lead you to a church or flavor of Christianity best suited for you. You might not like the Rock n' Roll protestants and may be drawn to the knowledge of the Orthodox. If God is with you, let his conviction guide your way. I don't think that we're going to show up to Heaven on Judgement Day and St Peter will meet us at the pearly gates to proclaim, "The Catholics were right. If you're a Catholic, come on in! Everyone else, thanks for playing." One thing that bothers me about Christians is their condemnation of other Christians. I know why though. It's been preached to them this way, by a man, because churches have competing offering plates. God doesn't need your stupid paper money.

I hope my advice helps, OP.

>>135501

>If you want the opinions of believing Christians ask on >>>/christian/

ProTip!

> Israel as set apart

uhm, maybe not

half of the world is circumcised, especially africa and middle east

and it was like this in the past too as far as i know

it was never unique to judaism

I don't think you have the proper perspective. I believe that your understanding of knowledge is not fit with Christianity. I believe this since you said "it is merely the history of a single people and not of the eternal truth" in many different forms, like when you criticise Revelations.

The incompatible supposition is the Socratic one, that knowledge is distinct from examples and proper use of it. That is to say, when I explain to a child basic arithmatic through examples, I do not teach him less than I know or less than he learns. The examples do not point to the teaching, but are the fullness of the teaching. I believe there is nothing to be seen outside examples, not even fabricated forms as Nominalists claim. It appears to me ancient peoples thought as I do an only later did the perspective of a whatness for concepts originate.

Perhaps your problem does not lie in ignorance and discovery but calibration and perspective.

>>135501

>It's typology, and he did. Circumcision was always a ritual that represented Israel as set apart, which they could only truly be inwardly.

>With the new covenant things like this were fulfilled.

"This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you."

God commanding the circumcision of the flesh. He tells them it's a token of the covenant but still he's commanding it. How do you explain this? Why would God command his people to do such a thing as mutilate their dicks?

>>135501

>I don't believe that you've actually read it

I've read the entire bible cover to cover and certain books in the Bible in excess of 10 times. I've read through all of revelations at least twice and random segments of it hundreds of times.

>and the existence of competing interpretations of prophetic literature isn't an issue with the literature.

To me it is when none of those interpretations really hold any weight and there's so many different interpretations.

>Again you clearly haven't read it

I have too and I don't get why you want to pretend I haven't when I have.

>It's the most straightforward book of the Bible to interpret because it's practically all historical prose

Yeah right. Lots of the Bible is very easy to understand interpret but Genesis is most certainly not.

>Presupposition

Okay.

>Anachronism

???

>Your feelings are not a trustworthy source of knowledge

I know that.

>Saul sends David on a suicide mission but he triumphs. The foreskins are evidence of his victory with the double meaning of shaming the enemy.

Well shaming the enemy it sure did. I'd be pretty upset if someone stole my foreskin.

>>135504

>let the spirit guide you in the direction that best suits God's plan for you.

About that. One thing I like about the concept of the higher self is that it's you in a future perfected state of being reaching back in time to help you evolve to that same perfection. Only things tedious about that is thinking about how in the future I'll have to spend so much time babysitting my past self. When it comes to God and his plans for me and "the revealed will of god" vs "the secret will of god" I am not so sure I really want what god wants. God's ways are not my ways and my carnal mind is enmity towards god.

>What matters most, in my personal opinion, what Christianity boils down to, do you accept Jesus' sacrifice for your sin?

I always feel a kind of glazed over feeling about this. It means nothing to me. A man can not die for my sin. A sacrifice can not appease anything. The whole concept of sacrifice to me doesn't make sense. Have I accepted Jesus as a substitute, dying in my place, for my sins? Sure. At least I can say it with words. My heart feels and my mind tells me that the concept of sacrifice means nothing. If I did a tremendous crime my father couldn't just go to the judge and say he'll go to prison in my place. It wouldn't be allowed and it wouldn't be just. So how can god die in my place?

What makes more sense to me than this sacrifice stuff is do I love virtue or not? If I have a desire for perfection then I think that makes me a child of God more so than any talk about sacrifice.

>Do you believe in God and wish to serve him and trust him with your soul?

I have a notion of a perfect being who is perfect in all his ways or at the very least the principle thereof. This I see in the concept of God and this makes me want to serve God. My hope is that there is something called God which can take notice of me and guide me and optimize my existence towards the highest good. To this end I deny myself in that whenever calamity befalls me (and my life is very much a tragedy) I simply say to God "if it was not meant to be, if I must suffer, and it is all in accord with your will; so be it". Even when terrible things happen to me (and they regularly do) and my life seems to coming to a premature end after a life of misery and failure I just say to god "if this is for the best, let it be". I will tell God what I want but I accept what he decrees. I do not know all the details of God but I put my hope and trust in His perfection because I don't see any other way out of this. I am like a blind man who easily goes astray. I need a perfect something that is greater than myself to save me from error. If I have a choice between Earthly pleasure at the cost of my spiritual progress and intense suffering and loss I would rather God lay waste to my life. I do wonder though if God is actually directing my fate for the better or if the plan is to let me suffer upon Earth and then suffer even more when my time here is done. I want to serve perfection and to be part of the working out of the greatest good.

There's a different view of reality where Earthly life is just as important and not all the different from what comes after death, where you have to work on yourself now, and not just suffer and hope that your redeemer comes. It seems to be hinted at in the Bible too when it speaks about continual learning even after death. I think it important to not disregard the world, maybe there ways of the carnal mind sure, but not the life we are living in this world right now. Here and now I should be serving God and growing in virtue.

>>135504

>If so, you're in. People will argue that it's not that simple, but it is. If you're truly saved, you will live with the conviction of the Holy Spirit in your heart. That conviction will be your new conscience to lead you to good over evil. You'll likely feel bad about punching kids in the face and snorting lines of cocaine off a stripper's tits after you get saved.

Alright this really makes me think of an issue I have big time with Christianity. For anyone who has been a horrible sinner, it is easy to go through the whole getting saved thing, and to feel the difference. Me though I was incredibly well behaved as a child and I've never had a propensity to do anything immoral. I've never had to ask god to save me or anything like that I am just a moral person by nature. According to the Bible we are sinners by nature (total depravity) and only God restrains any of that. So if that be true, God has been keeping my depravity in check, since before I could even think to ask for salvation.

Furthermore this triggers for me a very early memory now from my childhood. When I was like, I don't know, maybe 7 years old. I remember some Catholic woman getting mad at me that I would not confess any sins. I had nothing to confess as I had done nothing wrong. I would have gladly confessed any sins but I had none.

It makes me feel like I have to go and do some sinning just so I can qualify as a sinner then go do the getting saved thing. I almost feel a pressure to sin just for the sake of having a sin to confess. I didn't want to start lying and making up sins for the sake of having sins to confess. If I were to do so I guess I could make a false confession followed by a true confession of "my previous confession was a lie".

I suspect some people will read this and be like "you're full of shit, surely you did sin". No. At best I maybe didn't keep perfect posture, or write perfectly, or do anything perfectly. That to me is a kind of sin. But I haven't done anything one would normally recognize as sin like visiting prostitutes and doing drugs or assaulting people. I was a very kind, very docile, very well behaved child.

>Likewise, you'll feel a sense of accomplishments when you do good deeds in the name of your Lord, like giving a homeless man a sandwich.

I've tried that before and they didn't take my sandwich. Maybe paranoid about being poisoned or maybe just too well fed and looking for money or drugs. Some homeless have taken chocolate bars from me though when I've been walking around with them for a few hours talking.

I don't really feel any sense of accomplishment about "good deeds". I do them because it is my tendency and feel nothing about it; and I care not about the approval of man nor do I think it to earn me any merit in the sight of God. The only time I am truly happy (and often times, it is so intense I have tears fall from my eyes, and feel myself to be in the presence of what is best called "beauty") is when I am in meditation and I achieve insight. If you have ever worked long and hard on something complex, suffering many hours to bring it to completion, then you would understand that pure elation when it finally comes together and it works. For me to discern a truth is be awestruck at the supreme majesty of what God hath so finely crafted.

>>135504

>This same conviction will lead you to a church or flavor of Christianity best suited for you. You might not like the Rock n' Roll protestants and may be drawn to the knowledge of the Orthodox. If God is with you, let his conviction guide your way. I don't think that we're going to show up to Heaven on Judgement Day and St Peter will meet us at the pearly gates to proclaim, "The Catholics were right. If you're a Catholic, come on in! Everyone else, thanks for playing." One thing that bothers me about Christians is their condemnation of other Christians. I know why though. It's been preached to them this way, by a man, because churches have competing offering plates. God doesn't need your stupid paper money.

Well false doctrines do tremendous damage and clinging onto them is not good and where two opinions do not agree the only possibilities are that both are wrong or that one is right; it can not be that both are right for truth is singular and does not self-contradict.

I tend towards universality. In the Bible it speaks about people being held responsible for what they know and for what light is shed upon them. It seems to me a Biblical truth that a man can be saved having never heard of Christianity and having never read a Bible. A man so isolated or cut off from these things that he will never hear of them can still be saved by the living god who does this work of salvation in them.

I don't even understand the Bible even though I've read it all and some parts of it many times over. I don't even really understand what salvation is or what my soul is or what god is or much of anything really though I think so much about it all. The one thing I fall back on in my ignorance is that notion I mentioned previously of a perfect something that is above me and which has the capacity to help me and mold me to perfection.

Proverbs 3:5-7

''Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.''

''In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.''

''Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.''

Proverbs 3:11-12

''My son, despise not the chastening of the LORD; neither be weary of his correction:''

''For whom the LORD loveth he correcteth; even as a father the son in whom he delighteth.''

These verses I keep in my heart at all times and they arm me against my own ignorance and darkness and direct me to put my hope in the Lord God and to accept always what he decrees (that which has past).

>Revelation

>wildly different messages

Why are you on /fringe/? You're clearly not acquainted with metaphysical texts. Read the Philokalia in its entirety. The volume of information in Revelation is slightly greater than that, in one 190th of the space.

>>135501

>ask on /christian/

That place has successively been a Catholic and Protestant circlejerk since 2017. Everyone knows members of the One True Church only post on /fringe/.

>>135504

The eternal baptist poster manifests himself even here. Overall, I agree with most of your post, with one small exception- you should try not to commit good deeds for a sense of satisfaction. You can only get one reward for your deeds- either on Earth, or in Heaven. If you've taken pride in your deeds, the you have already taken your reward. When thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth.

>ProTip!

The baptist seeks only death and destruction, as always.

Your situation reminds me of my own quite a bit. What kicked me out of being a christian at an early age was thinking about the nature omniscience. If you assume that god is both omniscient and omnipotent, which most christians do, there are some interesting consequences. To be omniscient, god would know any possible future consequences of any actions he would want to take. So without creating the universe, he would know all possible universes that could be created and everything that would be in them. Based on this, why would god not just use his omniscience to see all future possible souls that would find salvation in him, across infinite possible universes and create them and heaven. There would be no need to make this universe as a test for the faithful, if god already knows who the faithful would be. It's within his power, based on the assumption he really is omniscient and omnipotent. So either god is some kind of sadist, willing to create millions of souls for no reason other than to eventually suffer in hell, or god is neither omnipotent or omniscient. In my view you can either have stockholm syndrome and accept god as some kind of all powerful narcissist, or god isn't omnipotent or omniscient, making you a heretic.

>>135535

>>135520

>Well false doctrines do tremendous damage and clinging onto them is not good and where two opinions do not agree the only possibilities are that both are wrong or that one is right; it can not be that both are right for truth is singular and does not self-contradict.

Accepting that there are multiple truths is what has lead me to consider myself a non-denominational Christian and open minded to all other religions. I don't feel I have strayed from my path, but most Christians would beat me up over this.

Jesus loved parables. Here is one from me to you about multiple truths and each of us having our own different paths and seeing things differently.

What color is the flower in pic related? Most humans would say blue and they'd be correct. Ask the spider and the spider will tell you green. The spider is also telling the truth. Ask the insect and it would tell you it sees a vibrant yellow and it wouldn't be a lie. Ask your canine companion what he sees and the dog will tell you it's gray. Would God punish the dog for not seeing blue? No. God created the dog to see the gray, just as he created us to see the blue. There are many Catholics who have lived righteous lives and believe whole heartedly in their salvation. Likewise, there are Bible thumping Free Will Southern Baptists preaching hellfire and brimstone who believe without a shred of doubt that they will be welcomed into Heaven. Both are right in spite of their differences.

>>135532

Oops! There I go being a baptist again leaving death and destruction in my wake. :p

>>135535

>>135538

I've always taken issue with this as well. It's more than just God testing us for the lulz. If Yahweh knew that Satan would corrupt mankind, why allow him to do it? If Yahweh knew that Lucifer and the (fallen) angels would revolt, why create them in the first place? Like all jewy things, I think "the chosen" wanted to dominate the market on religion with Monotheism. Polytheism was widely accepted in the past, but the jews wanted everyone to worship El and none other. Knowing this, the God I serve is the one true Creator God, regardless of his name or which religion is tied to him. Hindus see Brahma. Both are considered the Creator God. Blue flower, yellow flower, same flower.

Once you begin to question why Yahweh puts up with Satan and Lucifer's shenanigans, Polytheism makes a lot more sense. You can pray directly to various demons and angels. Catholics ask favors of angels all the time. Conversely, King Solomon was said to control jinn and demons. The jinn are said to be creatures with free will, created from 'smokeless fire' by Allah According to the Quran, jinn have free choice, and Satan used this freedom in front of Allah by refusing to bow to Adam when Allah commanded him to do so. So, why did God create the jinn? Was Solomon wrong to employ the help of jinn? Fallen Angels and demons, the way I see it, are lesser gods. Yahweh, Allah, Brahma are all different names for the Creator, capital C.

>>135532

How bad am I screwing up here? :^)

>>135538

The video doesn't address god being able to just look into the future and see who gets into heaven. Just make those people from thin air, with false memories, like they went through whatever to get into heaven.

There's also still the question of why. Even using the premise in the video of making the best possible world, where each person has free choice and there is the least amount of evil, more than half the souls ever created go to hell forever. Are you ok with worshiping something that thinks this is a good idea ? Also what is the point ? How could a being incapable of making a universe where more than half of all people find salvation be considered perfect ?

>>135519

As much as I wish I could give you better advice on this, I see Job in you. Job, from the Bible, was a good dude who had a pretty awesome life. Then one day Satan decided to make a bet with God that he could break Job. Of course, God goes along with it and allows Satan to take a shit all over Job's entire life. "Hang in there, Job. I'll make it up to you once this is all over." Job get practically destroyed and even his best friend told him to raise his fists to the heavens, curse God, and beg for death to end his suffering. Job kept his faith and didn't give up. God rewarded Job in the end.

I hate to say it, but you may be on the path of Job to some degree. Life hasn't been all rainbows and sunshine for me either, but the moral of the story is to keep your faith through the suffering and in the end, we will be rewarded. This world and our existence in it are temporary. Focus on your soul and your afterlife.

>>135542

>What color is the flower in pic related

I see this more like a handful of confetti thrown at my face rather than a serious argument. If you start from different assumptions and, depending on the being, entirely different brain structures and thus experience, you get different results. The answer isn't to accept all of them as true, but to observe each one in turn and reach a comprehension of how such views came about.

>>135548

The actual depths of religions can't be found by light reading and looking in between, I'm aware I said to observe each one, but I firmly believe one should deeply and autistically delve into one specific framework of thought. Labeling the different Gods as one singular being, a Creator, does a disservice to every one of those gods.

It's like confetti since it's at first glance just a bunch of colors and pretty shapes. A person is paralyzed and unable to move from the overwhelming stimuli.

>>135542

Fuck, I see why you're not on /christian/. You'd be crucified and banned on your first post.

My perspective on the "issue" of benevolence and omniscience, I see it like this: the human soul is a simulacrum of Being itself, a non-causal existence which was created once, outside of time, from God's uncreated energies. The problem is that the soul, being non-causal yet finite, isn't operative, and requires temporal, causal organs to exist as a complete theophany.

So, you now have a soul as the being-identifier of a person, with an abstract, non-material mind as its rational vehicle (spirit), and a physical body as its means of interaction with the world. You now have a whole image of God, which possesses a limited version of all of God's holy faculties- presence, science, and potence.

This micro-god now exists in a static form, uncorrupted yet undeveloped. He cannot discern evil, yet he also cannot fully discern good, so to complete his development into a little 'G' god, the polar principle of electricity, dichotomy, or dialectics, is permitted to develop. Since reality for him exists in an uncorrupted state and time is non-differential, this development is practically guaranteed.

The internal dialectic of humanity is enticed by an external manifestation of the Cosmic dialectic (the fallen angel of music, Satan), and of course, the female, negative aspect of man, the woman, gives in first, and convinces man to eat of the fruit of forbidden knowledge, with her. This is the first act of fornication, and the presence of the dialectic prevents them from existing in that neutral state, and being both limited and opposed with his own self, man now dies spiritually. He is resurrected spiritually by God made man, Who introduces the original divine element into the human being, allowing it to live in this corrupted state, and giving it the ability to acquire the Holy Spirit. This applies retroactively to all generations prior to the birth of Christ, because ontology.

The active, operative human being, now has the potential to develop itself, purify its own spirit through the worship of God, and become a god himself. This is Theosis, the purpose of human life.

"Heaven", as imagined by protestants, is a fantasy. Heaven is a state of being, more than anything, and it can only be achieved this way. You cannot create an artificial perfect person already in Heaven, the pain, suffering, and error, are all required to get there.

Since God is omniscient, you could argue that He already knows the future in which we're all already developed, or irreversibly in a state of hell, and could just create reality in that state. The problem is that, every prior moment leading to that state, by being conceived in the Cosmic mind, becomes real automatically. You cannot have a future independent of the past, and the present is just us experiencing that transition.

That explanation in itself, though, is unnecessary, because free will is the natural result of the birth of Christ, and us having that divine element within us. Every choice we make is made with the ontological authority of a god, a small act of creation in itself. You cannot have a non-linear temporal reality, divorced from the past, as it would negate free will, and make us little more than some meat puppets.

So, yeah, you've screwed up pretty badly, but that's expected of a baptist.

>>135550

>The problem is that, every prior moment leading to that state, by being conceived in the Cosmic mind, becomes real automatically. You cannot have a future independent of the past, and the present is just us experiencing that transition.

You might not realize it but you're making the same kind of argument that people who believe the universe is a simulation do.

>You cannot have a non-linear temporal reality, divorced from the past, as it would negate free will, and make us little more than some meat puppets.

In your view of things, god the creator of the universe, has those properties. The universe is just an extension of god, it's creator. We're meat puppets !

I don't want to go down the rabbit hole past this point. It's just rhetoric. There's nothing wrong with using that to convince people of your religion. But it's not the same as logical proof. Monotheists are weird about always trying to show their god is the only one, the only way and the only thing that makes any sense. Polytheists just like what they like, generally.

>>135553

>universe is a simulation

The irony isn't lost on me. When I first started questioning the nature of reality and existence, at around age 7, the whole "reality is a simulation" thing was one of the first concepts I considered. The whole premise is ridiculous, it simply moves the goal post one dimension away. The reality outside of our simulation, would still need to have a comprehensible ontology, it would need to account for time and space having a beginning, and all that.

The answer to out wacky reality isn't that our particular universe is a simulation, but that existence as a whole must be virtual, or mental, by nature. Instead of a physical computer, this simulation of ours is run on a purely chaotic principle of progressive discrimination, which includes every state of every reality which could ever exist, with any configuration of physical laws that we can or cannot imagine.

>>135553

>god has those properties

>make us little more than meat puppets

Well, not really. God doesn't exist in a non-linear temporal reality, He doesn't exist in a temporal reality of any sort.

The universe isn't an extension of God in the way you might think. Take the Greek pantheon and their successive generations of deities- they have their personal incarnations, which take on traits and personalities representative of the influences of the times, but the essences of the deities are always metaphysical concepts, with each successive generation representing more and more specific concepts, created through the interaction of simpler and more perfect ones.

Creation, in the Christian cosmological sense, is close to that kind of model. The universe is a configuration of the uncreated energies which emanate from God.

>It's just rhetoric

Actually it's dialectics. I'm not trying to convince anyone of my religion, the wall of text I posted was only meant for the baptistposter, to engage him on his cosmological views.

If I wanted to convert anyone, dumping a block of incoherent metaphysical babble wouldn't be my go-to approach. I'd probably just tell them to go to Jerusalem on Easter and touch the holy fire. I don't do that much nowadays, if someone wants to find the truth, they'll find it.

The ancient Egyptian and Greek priesthood always came back to the same unitive concept of the super-solar creator god, the Hindus have their Brahman, and so on.

Everyone has the capacity to find absolute truth and improve themselves, so I'd rather present concepts and ideas than try to convert.

Polytheists, nowadays, are less like the priesthood of the ancient pantheons, and more like the plebeians who couldn't comprehend anything past the most basic level.

By your conception of what a god is, my God not only isn't the only one, He's not a god at all, so, no, I'm not trying to convince you of that.

>>135555

>God doesn't exist

ftfy

>>135578

Thank you, what would I be without my grand and all-encompassing simplifications? Truly I would not be a deep thinker without first rejecting all thought.

>>135491

Religion is secularized metaphysics. The exoteric function of religion is to direct the mundane many towards God and to live a life of virtue. If you're asking questions, then you probably don't belong to the mundane many. Keep searching.

>>135491

you might like

>>135459

>>135495

whoa dude wow

>>135535

When God thinks something it is. God knows what shall be only because it shall be. God does NOT know what could happen only what will happen. God is not a probabilistic entity that can speculate about the future. Whatever is spoken by God is made instantly on the timeline. When God speaks with man there is a peculiar way in which God speaks. It's explained pretty well I think in Max Freedom Long - The Science of Miracles. God does not reason with you, god does not try to convince you of anything, god simply tells you what you need to know and you know instantly that it is god speaking without any rational explanation. I wish I could explain it better but I think the book I mentioned does it well or it might have been another book I read. Hopefully someone here understands.

If god thinks about infinite possible universes like you're talking about then the result is those possible universes all end up happening for real. All the thoughts of god are objectively manifested.

>o either god is some kind of sadist, willing to create millions of souls for no reason other than to eventually suffer in hell, or god is neither omnipotent or omniscient.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXh9ZdxC1MM

>>135542

>Accepting that there are multiple truths

Stopped reading right there. You are insane. There is no point in trying to reason with someone who thinks a square can be a circle. By accepting multiple truths you have abandoned reason and violated the fundamentals of logic. I have encountered one person like you before and it was a total waste of time to even talk with them about anything. They'd change and redefine words as they see fit, they'd contradict themselves constantly, and they were out of touch with reality.

Truth is singular not plural.

>>135542

>Here is one from me to you about multiple truths and each of us having our own different paths and seeing things differently.

The Bible itself says there is only one path and "broad is the way of destruction".

Also perspective is not truth.

>What color is the flower in pic related?

The average of the RGB values of the petals is the color. I have a color blind friend and when I point to something and ask what color it is he doesn't give me a different answer. It looks different to him but he uses the same label we are all taught for it. Regardless, our perception is not truth, and our labels are just labels.

>Both are right in spite of their differences.

No that is not possible. Either both are wrong or one is right. They can't both be right when there is a contradiction. Did you ever do shrooms in your life? The other person I know who believes in plurality of truth was a burnt out druggie who did shrooms.

>If Yahweh knew that Satan would corrupt mankind, why allow him to do it?

He only knows because it happened.

>If Yahweh knew that Lucifer and the (fallen) angels would revolt, why create them in the first place?

See above. He only knows because it happened.

>regardless of his name or which religion is tied to him. Hindus see Brahma. Both are considered the Creator God. Blue flower, yellow flower, same flower.

It doesn't matter what labels you use. There are lots of Hindus all worshiping Brahma but in reality each has a different concept of God and they are not all worshiping the same God as such. Likewise with Christians or any other religion.

>The jinn are said to be creatures with free will

No they are not. They are in total bondage to their master who is in total bondage to the master of all (God). That any being has life and power it is only so because they share in the ultimate, absolute, power that is God. See John 15:1

>>135544

Any metaphysics that divides up the power of God is inherently atheistic. The moment you steal away some of the power of god and give it to the creature, or to some lesser deities, etc. you have created a universe of blind forces warring against itself. It ultimately ends in accepting materialism/marxism.

That's what freewill is. Acting independently of God. Stealing the power of God.

There is no freewill. Created beings have agency, they make choices, and they have a nature which is corrupt and finite and evil, and they are responsible for what they do. But they do not act outside of the chain of cause and effect that has its ultimate cause in God.

The Bible says to fear God. It says we have enmity toward God. That the carnal mind hates God…. but the vast majority of "Christians" skip over this today and build a doctrine not on the whole word of god but cherrypicking what they like.

To understand things rightly. Do any of us pity a demon? We know a demon is an evil creature that is not fit for anything but hellfire. That is man as well however.

If you can understand this and accept the total depravity of man you can understand that "I am a man, entirely fit for destruction, having no merit in myself. I am a sinner, it my nature to fall short of the standards of God, I would ruin heaven if I was let in." then you can see things correctly. You have to die to the world, die to your sin, and be born again in the blood of the redeemer. Hardly anyone understands what this plainly means.

I will translate. You've all heard Christians who spew this nonsense about needing to accept Christ just to get a glazed over look in your eyes or to play along and be like "yeah brother, preach it" while not knowing what the fuck they are even going on about and they themselves not actually knowing either. What it means in reality is that for those who are called out by God, who are his children, you must go through a long process (often characterized by great suffering) through this life and the next where the beast nature (aka the nature of man) falls away through a process of purification until that man is made fit for heaven.

Part of the process is complete despair and realizing your helplessness. You must be completely humbled by God. Only then can he actually save you and even then it is entirely his sovereign decision. He doesn't have to save anyone. He can blind you, lead you astray, etc. and does so to countless multitudes.

God is not all love. He hates sin and he's a righteous judge. If you want to rebel against God this is entirely because God himself has hardened your heart and blinded you. Even the devil is doing the work of God and those who try to avoid their fate fulfill it. There is no escaping the decrees of God.

People need to start looking at god and the world rationally. God shouldn't be worshiped because "god loves me". God should be worshiped because HE IS and there is none other beside him. We live at his mercy. The proper relationship with God should be Stockholm syndrome. Seriously… and if that bothers you, well, know this; at least God does love and give life. He is not all evil. The ultimate evil would be the opposite of God aka nothingness. Yet God by being has abolished the ultimate evil and the good prevails for all eternity because of this.

If you want to do away with God then look at the universe not as a unified and ordered whole but as the blind struggle of irrational forces embodied in every part and particle of the universe. However the facts plainly observable in nature and inherent in the structure of the human mind testify that there is a god.

>>135548

The only truth is absolute truth. Anything else is not truth.

>>135634

>>135636

Regarding absolute truth, this is what a Hindu Yoga says.

Absolute Truth refers to a reality which doesn't change over time. Absolute means all other truths are relative to it, or depend on it. When we talk about God, or Krishna, we're talking about the Absolute Truth.

The Absolute Truth is the source of everything, the ultimate cause of all causes. In Sanskrit, it is also called satyam param, the highest truth.

This supreme truth can be perceived in three features—as Brahman, all-pervading, impersonal oneness, as Paramatma, the manifestation of God within the heart of every being, and as Bhagavan, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. These three are the same one truth, understood from increasingly advanced levels of realization.

In the beginning the Absolute appears impersonal. With more advancement, the Supreme is perceived within one's own heart and the hearts of others. The highest realization is to see the Supreme Truth as the Supreme Person, who is complete in wealth, power, fame, beauty, knowledge, and renunciation. The Bhagavad-gita, the Srimad-Bhagavatam, and other Vedic literatures identify this Supreme Personality of Godhead as Krishna.

So, other truths and all truths are relevant to the Absolute Truth. Christians believe in a similar trinity. If I were to ask you, is that burning bush (The Holy Spirit) God? Yes? Is Jesus God in the flesh? Yes? Is Big Sky Daddy Supreme Yahweh in Heaven God? Yes? How can that be though. Those are three truths, but there can only be one God?

The Quran says that Jinn have free will.

>No they are not. They are in total bondage to their master who is in total bondage to the master of all (God). That any being has life and power it is only so because they share in the ultimate, absolute, power that is God. See John 15:1

So, what you're saying is that God gave free will to Satan, Lucifer, and the Fallen Angels? What I understand of reading John 15:1 is it's basically John 14:6 in a nutshell. "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." This doesn't mean that Jesus held power over free will beings, only that Jesus is your only way to access Yahweh, as a Christian should believe. It's similar to the relationship between Hindus, Krishna, and Brahma. Here's something to tickle your noggin. If Jesus was the only way to Yahweh, what happened to everyone born before Jesus? (I know, Jesus was a new covenant.) The Bible also tells us that Enoch went directly to God. Is any of this a lie or are they all truths? Better yet, they are all truths that are relevant to the Absolute Truth. I see your Absolute Truth as a jigsaw puzzle, pieces of relevant truths that go together to form the bigger picture. I believe that the best way to see that bigger picture is when you know all of the pieces.

Read 2 Timothy chapter 3. (it's short)

"16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

>>135675

I want to add though that James, after learning everything he could about the subjects, believed in it so much that he had all the wizards and witches wiped out. So, for James to learn the truth about witchcraft, he studied it himself. (Then he burned them all at the stake.)

https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/history-and-civilisation/2019/10/royal-obsession-black-magic-started-europes-most-brutal-witch

I might order this book now. Seems interesting.

>>135675

>You have been banned from /christian/

Called it.

>The MAN (NOT GOD) who had a part in deciding what went in and what didn't get into your Bible was also a skilled sorcerer and necromancer.

I don't see any problem with that.

>>135676

>he had all the wizards and witches wiped out

Literally any sorcerer will do this if given enough power.

>>135677

>Literally any sorcerer will do this if given enough power.

Yeah. Seems that way, huh? After all the witch hunting was done, they eventually employed John Dee, but that was "okay" because he uses white magic. And so the British Empire was born. I'm sure the Royals still use magick today, but they don't want people to know about it. Probably the reason why James removed Enoch from the Bible. Too much Angel stuff in that book.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/authors/the-man-who-spoke-to-angels/

>>135678

Pretty much, except James wasn't the one who excluded Enoch from the canon. If you look at Orthodox bibles, which are basically the original texts as they were once the Bible was compiled, Enoch is still not included, and remains a separate book.

I think the reason for that lies more in how Enoch presents a different initiatic path, which is largely unachievable for modern people, while the New Testament basically supersedes it in every way. It's very important as a study text, but doesn't contribute to the spiritual core that the Bible represents, and is therefore not included. This is why other apocryphal texts from the same period are also left out, and treated as separate entities.

You shouldn't ree too hard about what is and isn't in the Bible, as it was never considered to be the Word of God by the people who compiled it. That whole interpretation is a Protestant innovation, the Word of God always referred to Christ, and while all the books in the Bible are directly inspired by the Holy Spirit, they aren't the only ones.