r/theology

Firstly, the purpose of this post is not to try to make anybody feel bad about their ideals and whatnot. I just simply don’t understand how someone could justify a sentence of eternal suffering for anyone. I would like to hear somebodies stance on this, someone who disagrees with me preferably.

Essentially, there has never been a single person on this earth that, I would argue, deserves eternal suffering. There is nothing anybody could do that would ever compare to such a thing. I have tried to see it from the other side and hear arguments for it, but no one who says they align with the morality of hell has ever had much to say about it really. I feel that, to justify it, one would have to simply accept that there must be some reasoning that only god could comprehend and we would just have to have faith that he knows better than we do. Other than that I can’t imagine any worldly argument for it.

Let me know what you think. State your case, if you will.

I am an ardent lover of classic literature and read works written by both non-Christians and Christians alike. Recently, I have noticed that many Christian/Catholic authors have characters who say things such as "Oh God" or "Oh my God" quite often. To use an example, Flannery O'Connor (who was a very devout and educated Catholic) has some of her characters drop a GD on occasion in her novel Wiseblood. Likewise, Dostoevsky used the Lord's Name throughout many of his books. Both authors were devoted Christians. There are many more instances that I could bring up, but I am wondering: Is it permissible for authors to use the Name of our Lord like that? Obviously the name of God is worthy of the greatest respect and reverence and should not be used in vain. Are the authors who use it like that committing a sin? Or is it permissible? I appreciate the feedback.

I want to understand if this makes any sense at all. I keep hearing people like Mark Driscoll and others like him
create what I’m intuitively perceiving as a false equivalence between “God as a God of Truth” and “God as a God of Love.”

The line of reasoning usually goes something like this: “God is a God of Love, sure. But He’s also a God of Truth. Love without truth is toxic, therefore you must tell your transgender (feminist, Marxist, etc.) neighbor about their demonic ways in order to really love them.”

I feel like this has a lot more to do with drawing enemy lines on a spiritual battlefield than it has to do with some philosophical/theological rumination about the nature of truth and love.

Sometimes I also feel like it’s about activating a permission structure for ideological/political hatred. This enemy creation engenders crisis and fear, which motivates people to give.

But I’m perceiving a contradiction: a “God of Truth” and a “God of Love” cannot co-exist in equal measure the way these people are placing them next to one another.

The field of “truth” they’re referencing is a spiritual truth, right? But what they’re talking about it in reference to is usually a political/cultural concept, like gender roles, how to “vote like Jesus,” etc. So it seems like they’re drawing on a more literal definition of “truth” in the field of knowledge, but this truth creates categories, segmentation, particulars, which allows people to draw their guiding lines within a social reality.

This is useful, obviously. I’m not trying to make the post-modern argument that truth is relative. But it is the case that truth allows us to agree on things like “What is the color green?” and “Murder is bad,” etc.

But it also generates the internal frontiers that pit one against another. “Truth” tends to lend itself in the case of the evangelists I’m talking about to things like, “Muslims are inhabited by demonic entities,” which allows people to draw a line between themselves and those they are against.

But Love — “Agapē” — is on another spectrum entirely, one which dissolves categories altogether.

How can “God as a God of Love” be interpreted with “God as a God of Truth” like these people are saying? If they mean the kind of “truth” we find in the field of knowledge, wouldn’t equating it to Agapeē sort of neutralize God as a God of Love? Making Christ.ms command to “Love thy neighbor as one loves themself” to lose all meaning.

Does that make any sense? I grew up in an evangelical church that was very destructive, and this thought is what helped me to escape, but I’ve been writing about Christianity a lot later and so subjected myself to Driscoll and received a lot of criticism by his followers, and now I feel the urge to know if my logic is making any sense or if I’m just barking up the wrong tree altogether.

Hey, I found this great article on the Internet. This guy claims he crossed over to a spirit world and came back and talks about God and the afterlife and a lot more things. He claims is 100% true story. And I just thought it was a great read. I wanted to share it.

What if the universe isn't made of separate particles floating in empty space, but one medium, and particles are just where that medium concentrates? Gravity would come from the gradients those concentrations create. But here's the thing, if particles are concentrations of the medium, then so are we. And what we call consciousness might just be the medium becoming aware of itself through us. The brain isn't generating that awareness, it's receiving it, like a computer isn't the user, it's just the interface. That means consciousness isn't something matter produces. It was there first. And a medium that creates particles, produces gravity, and grounds consciousness isn't inside space and time, space and time come from it. Something that exists before space, time, and matter, and in which everything else exists, that's what theology has always called God. Not a being in the universe, but what the universe exists in. And if everything is made of this medium, then God isn't just everywhere, everything is literally inside him. He isn't within us because he chose to visit, he's within us because we are concentrations of what he is. And because he exists outside time, time being something he produces, the past and the future aren't hidden from him. He sees all of it the way we see a road we're standing above, not travelling through.

(Note: I initially posted this thread with the title "Did Satan trick Jesus after all?", but this got insta-removed by the modbot because this sub requires that every thread title be phrased as a thesis not a question. I would've preferred for it to remain a question as it's somewhat less likely to cause offense that way, but alas I must comply with the rules if I want to post this at all. Anyway, here goes.)

Earlier today I replied in a thread about a "veil" in the backstory (aka "lore") of a particular computer game, an RPG. Here's the comment. I replied that it made me think of the veil that is rent when Jesus dies on the Cross, Matthew 27:51. While this may seem like a stretch, the association is actually not so strange because the game's backstory is full of religious concepts.

This got me thinking: did Jesus know that the veil would be rent? If not, are we to conclude that (some of) the consequences of the Crucifixion were. unintended? If so, that would put it up for debate whether or not Jesus fully understood what he was getting into by going to Jerusalem. Did he? If not—which means he was to some extent mistaken about what the ultimate consequences would be—howcome he was deceived?

When thinking this over, I was reminded of the final scene from the movie The Devil's Advocate that I recently watched again. In this film the protagonist (Kevin, played by Keanu Reeves) seems to escape the trap that the Devil has set for him by committing suicide at the last moment, which resets his life to the moment when he first came under the influence of the Devil. But the final twist is that in the last scene the Devil reappears under the guise of a journalist, and successfully tempts Kevin into giving an interview, thus once again bringing him under his influence. The Devil then grins into the camera and says (to the viewers): "Vanity, definitely my favorite sin."

Now, as we know, Jesus was tempted by the Devil when he spent 40 days in the desert, and he turned down the Devil's offers and challenges, thus defeating him—or so it seems. But right afterwards Jesus commences his ministry, and goes about telling prospective apostles that he will make them "fishers of men", performing miracles, and lecturing people about how to live life, and how belief in Him personally would save them from perdition—all of which has since long struck me as not being altogether free of vanity, precisely the sin that the Devil mentions at the end of the aforementioned movie as his favorite sin, presumably because it's the sin that allows him (the Devil) to bring a man under his influence.

So... while this may offend the sensibilities of staunch mainstream Christians, I can't help but wonder if perhaps, after Christ thought he had successfully rejected the Devil's temptations during his stint in the desert, fell for the subtler temptation of vanity after all and thus ended up doing the Devil's work without ever becoming conscious of it.

Which brings me back to the veil being rent. If we take the reasonable interpretation that the veil represents the separation between Heaven and Earth—as I argued in the other thread, see there—we may well ask whether it getting rent was that a good thing. Aren't Heaven and Earth supposed to remain separate? I suspect they should, and that therefore the rending of the veil wasn't exactly a good thing; and this makes me wonder if perhaps by submitting to Crucifixion Jesus brought something about that wasn't exactly beneficial for mankind.

If this notion causes offense, I understand, but I ask you in earnest to either bear with me, or, if you find the idea quite insufferable, to simply ignore this thread. For me, it's an open question. I am willing to listen to well-argued defenses of the traditional view that by submitting to Crucifixion Jesus did work the possibility of man's salvation. It would in a sense be a relief if someone restored me to this view. As things stand though, I'm not so sure.

Do comment.

If the canon is self-authenticating why did it take regional councils three hundred years to record a vote?

Why did the concept of a bounded closed library originate with Marcion? Why was it the man the early church labeled the firstborn son of Satan who first drew the circle?

If the Holy Spirit provides an intuitive recognition of the Word why did the first church historian document centuries of active dispute over Revelation and James?

Why does Western Christianity depend on the authority of the North African councils to define the Bible while simultaneously denying those councils have the authority to define anything else?

If the canon was settled by the fifth century why did it shatter into 66 and 73 books the moment the institutional weight of Rome was challenged?

Why is the 2,000 year continuous preservation of the Ethiopian 81 book canon labeled a deviation while the Roman and Protestant deletions are called the standard?

What ground are you standing on to dismiss the Ethiopian inheritance that was received in the first century and never revised by a committee?

If the apostolic standard is the goal why does the deposit in the soil of Ethiopia carry less weight than the decisions of a regional council in 393 CE?

The canon debate is not about the Word. It is about the power to define the Word.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

This is the heart of the Christianity. Each part of this verse says something important.

>For God

Theism is asserted and atheism denied.

>so loved the world,

Dualism asserted. God is not the world, he loves the world. God is benevolent.

>that he gave

God is a giver. The world receives.

>his only begotten Son,

Jesus is unique and divine, not merely an enlightened man, not merely one son of God among many.

>that whosoever believeth in him

All are called without exception. Belief in Jesus is the only condition for salvation. Salvation is utterly simple.

>should not perish,

Our natural fate would be to perish. We are born mortal.

>but have everlasting life.

Immortality is a reality and consequence of belief.

One thing I’ve noticed in a lot of modern Christian discussions is a strong desire to make everything fully explainable, systematized, and intellectually resolved.

Questions about suffering, predestination, hell, free will, the Trinity, prayer, salvation, consciousness, miracles, etc. often become debates where people seem uncomfortable leaving anything unresolved or mysterious.

But when I read scripture and older theologians, there often seems to be much more willingness to sit with paradox and mystery:

• God is both transcendent and personal
• Christ is fully God and fully man
• humans have free will yet God is sovereign
• suffering can have meaning without always having an explanation
• faith itself involves trust beyond complete comprehension

Sometimes modern Christianity feels heavily influenced by a kind of rationalistic mindset where every doctrine has to fit into a perfectly coherent system or else people become anxious.

At the same time, I understand why people want clarity. Bad theology and vague spirituality can obviously become an excuse for saying almost anything.

So I’m curious what others think:

• Has modern Christianity become less comfortable with mystery?
• Is this mostly a Protestant/Western tendency?
• Is emphasizing mystery healthy, or can it become intellectual laziness?
• Which Christian traditions do you think handle this balance best?

I saw a debate between a muslim and Christian. The Muslim saying it was Muhammed and The Christian saying it was the Holy Spirit. None of the two answer made sense to it would be Paul the apostle. He never met Christ in which helps explain 16:7 which Christ says he must leave before the advocate can come. When he was blinded for 3 days he heard the voice of Christ hence 16:13 him not speaking of his own and only what he hears and later being baptized to be filled with the Holy Spirit. Paul glorifies Christ so much that when he was crucified upside not feeling deserved of the same way Christ died 16:14. There’s more similarities I can pull but I’ll keep it short. Where do people draw the conclusions that it’s the Holy Spirit itself and that he has yet to come? God Bless!

i’m an atheist but I want to learn more about christianity and it’s relation to america’s history. I feel like there are many ways christian ideals have bleed into our current social culture but I don’t have enough knowledge about christianity to fully understand this concept.
where should I start to learn about the history/practices of christianity? is it worth it to read the bible? What sources are the most reliable to learn about christianity (w/o western bias ect)

Lately I’ve been wondering whether a lot of modern Christianity — especially in the West — has shifted from being primarily about holiness, truth, sacrifice, repentance, etc. into something much more therapeutic and psychological.

To be clear, I don’t mean that Christianity shouldn’t help people emotionally or psychologically. Obviously it does, and historically Christians have always cared about suffering, despair, hope, meaning, and the inner life.

But sometimes it feels like sermons, worship music, and even theology discussions increasingly revolve around:

• reducing anxiety,
• feeling emotionally validated,
• self-esteem,
• “healing,”
• personal fulfillment,
• or finding purpose.

Meanwhile themes like:

• sin,
• judgment,
• self-denial,
• asceticism,
• obedience,
• transcendence,
• fear of God,
• and sanctification

seem less emphasized in many churches than they were historically.

I’m curious whether others think this is:

1. a genuine theological shift,
2. mostly a change in tone/language,
3. a necessary adaptation to modern conditions,
4. or whether Christians in every era probably thought the surrounding culture was softening the faith.

Interested in perspectives from different traditions here.

If God knew the outcome of my life before he created me, how could he allow one to be born if he knew they would eventually be sent to hell?

If he is truly an ever-loving and kind God, why would he allow me to be born knowing I will eventually suffer for it?

A loving God should have the empathy, that even if my own decisions were the cause of this, he wouldn’t let me be born to go to hell.

The Tao, Void, Pleroma and Apeiron are Four Angles of the Same Ineffable

The Tao is the Buddhist nothingness and Anaximander's Apeiron as the Divine spark within Gnosticism, as the act of attention contained by perception thus a "spark", as attention is void and ineffable when placed upon itself and the Tao, Void, Pleroma and Apeiron are all effectively the same ineffable for what is ineffable contains all differention as one indistinct unity without contrast as but nothing.

Interested to hear your take on this argument that credobaptists should make the decision to not rebaptise people who were baptised as infants, and to do so whilst maintaining distinctly credobaptist convictions.

Matthew 5:45

>that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

And before you get up in arms because of context, well... the excerpt from which the verse is picked is about loving your enemies and praying for those who persecute you. But then doesn't this particular verse highlight the quality of impartiality in God.

I wanted to speak about this because, why pray then if even the unjust get an equal treatment to the just? Specifically, why pray for providence if it appears to be destined that a certain thing will happen in your life that falls according to the purpose ordained for you by God?

Hi. I'll be as brief as possible. Here are my broad brushstroke suppositions.

1. Jesus and Joshua having the same name is significant.

2. Joshua's conquest failed

3. Jesus in Mark, working a ministry of healing and teaching in Decapolis, Tyre and Sidon can be interpreted as mirroring the conquest in true fulfilling style (possibly including feeding of 4000 depending on geographical interpretations).

4. Parallel concept is Jesus as Israel

If you get a moment I'd be grateful if you could have a think about the feasibility of these suppositions and be free to be harsh.