Not reformed but I have a genuine question that I would like to understand. Under the notion of "unconditional election" if I am not elect am I just out? Like if I have a desire to follow God but I am not part of the elect then too bad? Or is the position more that if I have any desire to follow God that makes me elect?

This is what I found and wondered if it was you.

Has anyone read this book? If so, what do you think about it? I am getting ready to start reading it today

Does Anyone Know of Any Online groups who will read the bible, particularly Psalms with me for several hours each day? I desperately need an accountability partner.

For context, my friend and I have been friends for about a year now, and I've always noticed one thing: whenever he sees someone sinning, he calls them out in a disrespectful way that doesn't reflect the love of God. Today I asked him about it very nicely and politely, but he got mad at me, and it turned into a heated debate where, this sounds crazy, but I felt Jesus talking through me, and I wasn't speaking anymore. After the debate, I won, but I kept feeling guilty about the debate, so now I'm wondering if God was speaking through me, and I won the debate. Why am I feeling guilty? Is this the enemy trying to weaken me? This is kind of making me question my faith. Please help.

How do you reconcile a "loving father" who condemns the first people who disobey him and everyone else who follows...we all have to suffer. 

How is this on the face of it "loving"?

We hear people all the time talk about sick and dying children in hospitals in developing countries etc. 

We can argue whatever you want from the Bible but still at the end of the day you have people suffering horribly and yet you're supposed to say that this is God's plan and he is loving. Accept it and if you don't you will burn in hell for eternity-- because God loves you soooo much. I hear non-Christians make this argument. 

u/InternalTomatillo878, u/fire_spittin_mittins, u/cbot64

Justice was more important than ritual sacrifices. The Book of Proverbs is part of the Bible's "Wisdom Literature" and provides practical guidance for living a righteous and godly life. It emphasizes themes such as wisdom, justice, humility, and the fear of the Lord.

Pr 21: >3 To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice.

The point is not that sacrifices were inherently bad. They were commanded by God under the Mosaic covenant. Rather, God values moral integrity and justice more highly than ritual observance. Loving God is inseparable from loving our neighbors.

Isaiah expressed a similar sentiment in 1: >11 “What to me is the multitude of your sacrifices? says the Lord; I have had enough of burnt offerings of rams and the fat of well-fed beasts; I do not delight in the blood of bulls, or of lambs, or of goats.

The problem was not the sacrifices themselves, but that they were offered by people who neglected righteousness and justice. Ritual without obedience was unacceptable to God.

>17 learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.

James carried this theme to the NT 1: >27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.

According to James, Christianity was a religion in the true sense of the word.

Is Christianity not a religion but a relationship?

That's a false dichotomy. It is both a religion and a relationship. God is righteous and just. That's God's character. We are to relate to God that way. Don't just pay God lip service in words or ceremonies. Examine our hearts. Express our faith through tangible deeds of love, compassion, fairness, and caring for others.

“For the Lord has chosen Zion, he has desired it for his dwelling, saying, “This is my resting place for ever and ever; here I will sit enthroned, for I have desired it.” - The Lord of Hosts. God.

Source: Bible. Psalm 132:13–14

--------------------- ------------------------ -----------------------------

Now I have a question. Answer me plainly.

“What is “Zion” and if it’s Jerusalem who said Psalm 132:13–14 has he lost interest in it?”

Now, I’m dumber than a box of broke toilets; but

• The Bible: Yes, it’s just a book. Meets the definition: 1. a set of printed, or written pages of paper bound together on one side, and protected in covers. There are 10s of no 100s of millions of books that meet this dictionary definition. What makes each one unique is the “author” who is the “authority” over the content he or she places their word IN THE BOOK.
  • The Bible has only one author. God. He’s the “authority” of the content in that book. He’s just one God.
    • And again, attach a role of toilet paper to me and fly me off a cliff, but of “Zion” the Bible says plainly:

--------------------- ------------------------ -----------------------------

ONE

2 Samuel 5:7: “Nevertheless David took the strong hold of Zion: the same is the city of David.”

• Jerusalem is called the “City of David” and Zion. It was King David’s capital. This same Zion, and?
  • muse on “when” God said this..opening scripture. It is before the foundation of the world was laid..that he would make for himself a place he would dwell forever, for his own rest. For he desired it. The whole of Psalm 132:13–16.
    • Then in Genesis 1:1–31 - he got up. As God. And created it. Says: “For all the earth is mine.” - God (Exodus 19:5)

--------------------- ------------------------ -----------------------------

TWO

Isaiah 9:6–7: Says of the “Messiah” or “Christ” and Jesus in the Gospels - all four of them and all the Epistles and all the books in the Old Testament testify of him as the “Messiah.” Who he SHALL be called is told plain as day:

• It’s who he is, just as John 1:1 says who Jesus is: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Wor was with God, and the Word was God.” Says what the Messiah shall be called in Isaiah 9:6–7; that of his Kingdom and reign, that he shall sit on the throne of King David in Jerusalem and rule the whole earth from there. Of His Kingdom and reign there shall be no end.

That the “Messiah” shall be called: “The Mighty God…” “The Everlasting Father….” There is only one has that title.

--------------------- ------------------------ -----------------------------

So, let me ask my question again.

Zion: if it’s Jerusalem who said Psalm 132:13–14 has he lost interest in it?”

So, I was talking to some people and they were claiming the Bible is misogynistic, and gave examples.

Genesis 3:16
Woman is told: "Your husband... shall rule over you."

Exodus 21:7–11
A daughter may be sold as a servant under laws different from those for male servants.

Leviticus 12:1–5
A mother is ceremonially unclean twice as long after giving birth to a daughter than to a son.

Leviticus 15:19–30
A menstruating woman is considered ceremonially unclean.

Leviticus 27:3–7
Women are assigned lower monetary valuations than men.

Numbers 5:11–31
A ritual ordeal exists for a husband who suspects his wife of adultery, with no equivalent ordeal for suspicious wives.

Numbers 30
A father or husband may annul a woman's vows.

Deuteronomy 21:10–14
Female war captives may be taken as wives.

Deuteronomy 22:13–21
A bride may be executed if she cannot prove she was a virgin.

Deuteronomy 22:28–29
A man who rapes an unmarried virgin must pay her father and marry her, and may never divorce her.

Judges 19
A concubine is handed over to a mob, abused to death, and her suffering is treated primarily in relation to the men involved.

1 Corinthians 11:3–10
Man is described as the head of woman; women are instructed to wear signs of authority.

1 Corinthians 14:34–35
Women are instructed to remain silent in churches and ask questions at home.

Ephesians 5:22–24
Wives are instructed to submit to their husbands.

Colossians 3:18
"Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands."

1 Timothy 2:11–15
Women are forbidden from teaching or exercising authority over men in the church.

1 Timothy 3:2
Church overseers are described as male ("husband of one wife"), traditionally understood as excluding women from the role.

Titus 2:3–5
Women are instructed to be submissive to their husbands.

1 Peter 3:1–6
Wives are instructed to submit to their husbands, even unbelieving ones.

I am ashamed that I don’t have answers to these? Does anyone have anything to say about these?

ANSWER: There's a "distinction."

• The Gospel of Thomas - was discovered in 1945 at Nag Hammadi. Egypt. 114 secret sayings, parables, and dialogues claimed in the work it's dialogue Jesus has with "Doubting Thomas" - an Apostle of Jesus Christ. Claims it is a work of the Apostle Thomas. But in it, has nothing of Jesus in it.
• The Book of Thomas - Full title: The Book of Thomas the Contender - is NOT the same text, but often people interchange them as the same thing; but they, are different texts; but were found together in the Nag Hammadi library. Egypt.
  • Claims as well - this is now a secret with ONLY between Thomas and Jesus - after Jesus rose from the dead. When Thomas in the gospels is singled out, he didn't believe Jesus, unless he could put his hand into his side, and the holes in his hands (John 20:25)
    • The theme in both works is the same - Greek Gnostic asceticism and philosophy, which a Greek gnostic would champion - permeate BOTH texts
  • As a Greek philosopher - would be taught and claim Apollos and the Oracle at Daphne - and Greek Philosophers say the same thing then, as Jesus says. That Jesus is a Greek philosopher is the point. Because the sayings, then arguments in the other are the same.
  • When NEITHER - - Thomas didn't write either.

Here's the caveat for both.

And this question:

Is NOT from a believer in Christ - but from someone actually trying to slam believing in Jesus Christ as if Christians just stole Greek Philosophy. That if you read these works, you'd come to that conclusion.

------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------

But for a Believer in Jesus Christ:

Means you should throw BOTH the Gospel of Thomas and "The Book of Thomas" in the Trash can. Why? They are not in the Bible. For Good Reason. Heresy.

• ONE) Rejects the Cross and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. - When That’s the Gospel.
  • Gospel of Thomas and the Book of Thomas is another gospel.
    • Rather, champions out Greek “Gnostic” Knowledge where the Greek God, Apollos who instructed the “Oracle at Daphne” and dispensed knowledge in Greek Logic and Philosophy to Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato. ..as Sages. That: The Gospel of Thomas champions Apollos and Greek philosophy and debates/arguments come logic IS THE GOSPEL.
  • Trash. Worthless.

------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------

• TWO) The “Divine Spark” was what was inscribed in the wall at the Temple to Apollos - “Know Thyself”
  • And the temple isn’t anymore. And “Know Thyself” is what all Greek Philosophers (Gnostic) champion out.
  • When The Bible says: “The LORD giveth wisdom, out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding. Bible. Proverbs 2:6
    • Comes out of the wrong God in the Gospel and Book of Thomas. Champions Greek Logic and Philosophy in both. Lies. Because Thomas never wrote either. And the quotes Jesus says, he didn't say them, either.
  • Means it also comes with great punishment for someone adding in words that Jesus never said.
    • Heresy. Throw it in the trash can.

------------------- ------------------------ ------------------------

The Gospel of Thomas is heresy.

• And all “heresy” is defined as: 1. provide an alternate contradictive choice or course of thought.
• Both these works meet that dictionary definition.
  • Claims that the Disciple of Jesus Christ, Thomas in the Gospels in the Bible wrote it, when he didn’t.
    • Thomas was an APostle and glorified Jesus Christ.
  • It’s a forgery. A man-made, made up falsehood trying to insert itself as truth - when it has no truth in it.

u/Villian1470

Lk 22: >36 He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one."

Jesus told the disciples to buy swords figuratively.

Why did the disciples misunderstand?

This was not an isolated incident. Throughout the Gospels, they repeatedly interpreted Jesus literally when He spoke symbolically. Examples include:

• "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees." They thought He was talking about bread (Matthew 16:5–12).
• "Destroy this temple..." They thought He meant the building rather than His body (John 2:19–21).
• "Lazarus has fallen asleep." They thought Jesus meant ordinary sleep (John 11:11–14).

Jesus often taught in ways that were only fully understood later.

Further, they were still expecting a political kingdom. Even near the end of Jesus' ministry, the apostles had not fully abandoned hopes that he would establish an earthly kingdom. Only hours earlier, they had been arguing about who was the greatest (Luke 22:24). After the resurrection, they still asked, "Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" (Acts 1:6) So when Jesus mentioned buying swords, it fitted naturally into their existing expectations.

u/havanafawn, u/Unworthy_Saint, u/Recent_Weather2228

If God is all-knowing, surely he should’ve known menstruation and birth aren’t inherently dirty?

Right. In fact, the OT concept of unclean did not imply being dirty. These were natural events. They were not morality plays. Another one in Leviticus 15: >16 If a man has an emission of semen, he shall bathe his whole body in water and be unclean until the evening.

To be more precise, this was ritually unclean, not dirty. It was an ancient Near Eastern religious category. We need to see this in its historical, cultural, and religious context.

The perception of women as "unclean" during menstruation or after childbirth in the Hebrew Bible stemmed from ancient cultural views on bodily fluids and ritual purity, which were framed within a religious system of maintaining holiness and order—not as a moral judgment against women.

The NT did away with this ancient religious category.

See also

• What was the reason for a mother to be unclean for twice as long after giving birth to a girl than a boy?

Referral Theology: the referral that doesn't land with possibility.

When I say something does not land, it means that it does not have a possibility.

Think about a magic trick. You have the props. You have the performance. And you have the fact that it was never magic to begin with. The performance never actually happened the way it looked.
God-talk works like that. It does not land with possibility. It doesn’t actually happen the way it may seem.

It is simply a fact that we cannot go outside our finite reality, not with experience or thought or anything. When we extend “beyond” our reality, all we are doing is adding more of reality itself. When we say a not finite being it itself is a form of finiteness.

There are many different conflations that don’t actually exist including square circles, magic tricks, optical illusions, and extensions that seemingly go beyond our reality but do not. In every case, the emergent conflated value—the trick—does not actually exist but it piggy backs off of something that does exist to make the performance.

With God, the not finite being is itself a finite being and it gets inherently conflated between what it is and what it says. Conflations piggyback a performance stability via things that do exist but the conflation still never exists.

Referrals that don’t land with possibility get piggyback stability for a performance but do not actually exist.

This is not religion or atheism, and it is not agnosticism. It is none of those because they claim facts or not being sure of facts, but there is no data at all. When I said the conflation does not exist, that is not atheism. The conflation does not exist but we have no data at all.

Because we have no data in our existential capacity, the performance is profoundly meaningful. But it does not land and not having any data is itself part of the profound experience.

But if you land anything about God, if you make anything possible, that is a finite idol.

This is deeply biblical:
Shemot 3:14, "so shall you say to the children of Israel" this is my Name to say. No landing.

Devarim 4:12, "all you heard was the sound of words." “Just a voice.”

Shemot 33:20, “And He said, you will not be able to see My face, for man shall not see Me and live (be aware).” Shemot 33:23, “And you will see My back, but My face cannot be seen.” Shemot 33:11, “And HaShem spoke (via referral) to Moses face to face, as a man would speak (refer) to his companion.” HaShem’s face is the conflation. HaShem’s back is the finite token from which the conflation emerges. Seeing means having it as possible. Our finite live awareness blocks seeing HaShem’s face—seeing the conflation—as possible. We can only talk about Hashem’s face in referral as a performance, but we can’t see it as possible. We can see HaShem’s back because it is the finite token without conflation.

This will solve a lot of world problems, because people will stop fighting over whose performance is true. It's all a performance with no data. Jump on board now, and you will be the first to have known it.