u/JCraig96

I was watching a therapist on YouTube, and he said something that fascinated me. This is what he said:

"I'd rather there be a world—and a universe even—where there is no inherent meaning. It's not assigned or ordained in some sense, because then you can just decide for yourself what's meaningful. I don't like the idea that if I discover meaning in something and that turned out to not be one of the actual meaningful things that was decided before I ever got involved, well then, it wouldn't really feel like my story. And so, I prefer a world without inherent meaning, and I don't find that sad. I find it really encouraging and something that allows us to make meaning ourselves. If nothing really matters, then you get to decide what does."

As a Christian, I obviously disagree with him. But how would you respond to this?

God wants you to believe in Him. To not believe in God is a sin.

Does God even care if you believe in Him or not?

I'd say He cares that you believe in Him if He wants a personal relationship with you.

What if you don't need technical belief in God to have a personal relationship with Him?

If God is in everything and works through everything, then wouldn't God have a personal relationship with you without your actual belief in Him?

It's true, He'd have a personal relationship with people without their belief; but it'll also be without their knowledge. If you don't believe in God, then you wouldn't believe that you have a relationship with God. From a human standpoint, how could you have a relationship with something that doesn't exist? And God wouldn't exist to them, so the relationship would be entirely one-sided. And that's not how true relationships work.

So, the point still stands: God cares that you believe in Him if indeed He desires that you and Him have a personal relationship.

Well, how about this: Is conscious awareness of God necessary for genuine reciprocity, or can a person relate to God authentically through truth, love, and surrender even if they conceptually deny Him?

What is your answer?

My father was a good father to me. He wasn't present all the time, but I know that he loved me. He had a history of doing drugs, but I don't fault him for that, for I know what it's like to be in an addiction. My father taught me a lot of things, we had a lot of deep talks about life and God. I loved talking with him. He died back in 2017, the day after a solar eclipse. I was 20, I'm 29 now.

My father was also a pedophile. He didn't molest me, but only because I was a boy and he wasn't attracted to the same sex. He had a daughter that he molested. My older half sister who is much older than me. He molested her back when she was 12. And the way he lied about it was weird, he told people that she asked to have sex with him. Which was strange and stupid to my mom because when your own daughter asks you to have sex with you, you don't say yes her request, you discipline her! But it was a lie anyhow. And he not only molested his daughter, but his daughter's daughter, starting when she was but 4 years old.

Because of this, my niece (we are the same age) initiated sexual play with me, acting out onto me what was done to her. I remember a lot of the preverted things we did together, at just 4, 5, and 6 years old. It has had a lasting impact on me even to this day.

My niece, now grown up, blames her mother and claims that she knew about it. She is angry, they argue all the time, and they sometimes even fought. They have a really strained relationship, and it all stems from my dad.

Because of all this, I have conflicting feelings about my dad. I don't hate him. I still love him, even if he was a pedophile. But...I wish I had a normal dad. A dad without these skeletons in his closet. If I had such a dad, I bet a lot of things would be different right now, with a lot of people...me included.

​

Hey all, there are these two passages in scripture that I can't make heads or tails of in how they fit together. When read together, they seem like a contradiction. I'm talking about 2 Kings chapter 5 and Ezekiel chapter 18.

In Ezekiel 18:17-20 it says this: "He will not die for his father's sin; he will surely live. But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people. Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The one who sins it is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them."

But back in 2 Kings 5:26-27, it says this: But Elisha said to him, "Was not my spirit with you when the man got down from his chariot to meet you? Is this the time to take money or to accept clothes—or olive groves and vineyards, or flocks and herds, or male and female slaves? Naaman's leprosy will cling to you and your decendants forever." Then Gehazi went from Elisha's presence and his skin was leprous—it had become as white as snow."

Since God does not change, surly He had the same rule of not punishing the son for the father's sin even before He decreed it in Ezekiel. And Elisha, being one of the great prophets, should've known this, no? But even if Elisha didn't know, or He went against God's will, it's not spoken like Elisha did anything wrong, and as far as we know, Gehazi's decendants are still leprous. But why would God allow this? Why would God allow His prophet to do this to the decendants who hadn't shared in Gehazi's sin? It's like it was God's will for Gehazi's decendants to suffer the same punishment as Gehazi himself, even though that goes agaist God's will and decree in Ezekiel.

It just seems like a contradiction, and I don't know what to make of it. So can anyone help me sort this out? If anyone has any answers, please share.

​

Hey all, there are these two passages in scripture that I can't make heads or tails of in how they fit together. When read together, they seem like a contradiction. I'm talking about 2 Kings chapter 5 and Ezekiel chapter 18.

In Ezekiel 18:17-20 it says this: "He will not die for his father's sin; he will surely live. But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people. Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The one who sins it is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them."

But back in 2 Kings 5:26-27, it says this: But Elisha said to him, "Was not my spirit with you when the man got down from his chariot to meet you? Is this the time to take money or to accept clothes—or olive groves and vineyards, or flocks and herds, or male and female slaves? Naaman's leprosy will cling to you and your decendants forever." Then Gehazi went from Elisha's presence and his skin was leprous—it had become as white as snow."

Since God does not change, surly He had the same rule of not punishing the son for the father's sin even before He decreed it in Ezekiel. And Elisha, being one of the great prophets, should've known this, no? But even if Elisha didn't know, or He went against God's will, it's not spoken like Elisha did anything wrong, and as far as we know, Gehazi's decendants are still leprous. But why would God allow this? Why would God allow His prophet to do this to the decendants who hadn't shared in Gehazi's sin? It's like it was God's will for Gehazi's decendants to suffer the same punishment as Gehazi himself, even though that goes agaist God's will and decree in Ezekiel.

It just seems like a contradiction, and I don't know what to make of it. So can anyone help me sort this out? If anyone has any answers, please share.

Hey all, there are these two passages in scripture that I can't make heads or tails of in how they fit together. When read together, they seem like a contradiction. I'm talking about 2 Kings chapter 5 and Ezekiel chapter 18.

In Ezekiel 18:17-20 it says this: "He will not die for his father's sin; he will surely live. But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people. Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The one who sins it is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them."

But back in 2 Kings 5:26-27, it says this: But Elisha said to him, "Was not my spirit with you when the man got down from his chariot to meet you? Is this the time to take money or to accept clothes—or olive groves and vineyards, or flocks and herds, or male and female slaves? Naaman's leprosy will cling to you and your decendants forever." Then Gehazi went from Elisha's presence and his skin was leprous—it had become as white as snow."

Since God does not change, surly He had the same rule of not punishing the son for the father's sin even before He decreed it in Ezekiel. And Elisha, being one of the great prophets, should've known this, no? But even if Elisha didn't know, or He went against God's will, it's not spoken like Elisha did anything wrong, and as far as we know, Gehazi's decendants are still leprous. But why would God allow this? Why would God allow His prophet to do this to the decendants who hadn't shared in Gehazi's sin? It's like it was God's will for Gehazi's decendants to suffer the same punishment as Gehazi himself, even though that goes agaist God's will and decree in Ezekiel.

It just seems like a contradiction, and I don't know what to make of it. So can anyone help me sort this out? If anyone has any answers, please share.