God is dead.
But how?
He is not dead because he lost the time given to him.
He died because we don’t have time for him.
He died because he was an artist who loved to create,
but he died because his art started to hate.
He went through pain to give birth to his art,
but his art thought itself far too smart.
He dies when priests steal his thoughts and misuse,
He dies when his believers just believe in him for their use.
I have been studying religions (coming from a secular country, not religious family).
I have read the Bible we had at home and I read Quran.
When you just read to read, I don't think anyone would consider any book anything. But when you try to reflect and go out of your to make a sense of what those verses say, you get attached to reading more.
I have so far been into Quran since there are bunch of different versions of Bible and each sect had their own beliefs which is for me weird.
The authors of the Bible are people, literal people that makes me not take it as seriously honestly.
When it comes to Quran, there are some things I'd like to understand more or it is not making sense to me.
I found a few magics in Quran though like the iron not being a product of Earth but outer space, the universe keeps expanding. Roman's war results.
However I did not get the verse about mountains keeping the earth stable or the land stable.
Other than that, someone explain the logic of Trinity, I thought so much, if Trinity is real, it goes against the Bible (God is one). Jesus was praying to himself?
God can't die, (Jesus died).
Jesus learned more and more about God as he grew up
(what do u mean?)
If the purpose is to clean us of our sins, why would you just not do it from wherever you are?
and if u came down to clean those people's sins, why not come down now to clean us now since the world is much more wicked and corrupted place now?
why would you let yourself be killed by people? how's that even make sense?
We are talking about The God, The Greatest, The most Capable, Creator of endless Universe, creations, the most complex things that humanity cannot even bear to understand.
How is that even make sense?
Hey, I’ve self identified as Christian but have been learning more about other faiths too, especially Islam. There are still elements of Christianity that do confuse me a bit. The Trinity being the main one. Islam professes tawid or pure monotheism. Can you guys please help explain The Trinity and how it is still monotheism. I’m also confused when Jesus is praying to the father. Or is this because he has two distinct natures, and his human nature is the one that prays? But if this is the case, some could argue that he is praying to himself in essence?
I’ve called myself a Christian since early this year, but I’ve also been curious to learn about Islam. I’ve briefly studied dharmic faiths and they are philosophically rich and beautiful, but I find the historical grounding for the key figures like Jesus and The Prophet Muhammad to be much stronger.
What makes you guys be a Christian instead of a Muslim? And are there any aspects of Islam that you think make more since then Christianity. I’ll be honest, I’ve been struggling with the concept of the Trinity and have recently posted about it. I appreciate that Islam has tawid or pure monotheism which is definitely more simple and consistent.
Although what draws me more to Christianity is I believe that the resurrection is the best explanation of the historical facts - and I don’t know why God would deceive people for 600 years? God becoming flesh shows a God who is not a stranger to suffering, too.
In the Book of Genesis, it says that God created the universe and made humanity in His own image. We often think of this "image" in a spiritual or moral sense, but what if it is also woven into the very fabric of reality?
Everything in the universe is made of atoms. And just as the Christian understanding of God is a Trinity (The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit), the atom itself is fundamentally composed of three distinct parts:
The Proton (Positive)
The Electron (Negative)
The Neutron (Neutral)
Three distinct parts, yet they form one single, indivisible reality. Without any one of them, the atom as we know it could not exist.
Could the structure of the atom be a physical reflection of the Triune nature of the Creator? If God created the universe, it makes sense that the fundamental building block of all matter would bear His signature.
What are your thoughts? Does this analogy hold up for you, or is it just a beautiful coincidence?
What’s your story?
I would say I’m now a Christian but I have a lot of doubts and struggles. Was raised agnostic but with Christian and Hindu cultural celebrations. Had a spiritual experience a few years ago looking into the night sky after being with friends, explored Hinduism, but had heavy doubt. I fell into new atheism but saw how shallow it was, and found arguments for God and Christianity far more compelling than I gave them credit for.
Jediism and Christianity Are Not Compatible — and Here’s Why
I’ve spent some time looking into the International Jedi Federation because I initially assumed it was essentially a Star Wars fan organization with some philosophical material attached.
After reading their own curriculum and organizational documents, I don’t believe that’s an accurate description.
The International Jedi Federation openly presents Jediism as a spiritual/religious path centered around the Force. Their material discusses meditation, spiritual development, healing, ritual, seeking guidance from the Force, esoteric practices, and even “arcane Force abilities.”
I want to be clear about something:
I’m not saying the IJF is necessarily a cult.
That’s a separate question, and I don’t think we should throw that label around without sufficient evidence.
But I am saying something much more straightforward:
Jediism, as a religious/spiritual system, is not compatible with biblical Christianity.
And from a Reformed Christian perspective, I don’t think there is any legitimate way to merge the two.
Why?
Because Christianity is not simply another spiritual philosophy that can be placed alongside Jediism.
Christianity teaches that there is one true God, one revelation of God, one Savior, and one mediator between God and man.
“You shall have no other gods before me.”
— Exodus 20:3
“I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father except through me.”
— John 14:6
“For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”
— 1 Timothy 2:5
That leaves no room for Christianity to say:
“Christ is our Savior, but the Force is another legitimate spiritual reality we can seek, experience, and receive guidance from.”
That’s not Christianity.
The IJF’s own material teaches people to develop a personal understanding of the Force and to engage in spiritual practices intended to connect with it. Their curriculum includes meditation, spiritual guidance, healing, ritual, esoteric approaches, and “arcane Force abilities.”
That is religious practice.
And this is where the distinction between Star Wars and Jediism becomes incredibly important.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with a Christian enjoying Star Wars.
A Christian can appreciate fictional Jedi characteristics such as:
courage
self-control
sacrifice
defending the weak
resisting hatred
serving others
Those are fictional themes that can even provide opportunities for discussion about genuine Christian virtues.
But that’s completely different from saying:
“I practice Jediism.”
Once Jediism becomes a spiritual system in which a person meditates to connect with the Force, seeks guidance from the Force, practices Force-based healing, participates in Jedi spiritual rituals, or pursues alleged Force abilities, we’ve crossed from fiction and philosophy into religion.
And Christians cannot simply add another religion to Christianity.
Paul warns:
“What do I mean then? That a thing sacrificed to idols is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to demons and not to God; and I do not want you to become sharers in demons.”
— 1 Corinthians 10:19–20
Likewise:
“Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God.”
— 1 John 4:1
The Christian doesn’t seek spiritual truth by experimenting with whatever spiritual reality might be out there.
We test everything by God’s revealed Word.
That’s the heart of sola Scriptura.
And this is where I have a fundamental problem with the idea of a “Christian Jedi.”
If by Christian Jedi someone means:
“I’m a Christian who likes Star Wars.”
Fine.
But if they mean:
“I’m a Christian who practices Jediism as a spiritual/religious path.”
Then I don’t see how that position can be maintained consistently with Christianity.
You cannot simultaneously say:
Christ alone is Lord, Scripture alone is the authoritative revelation of God, and God alone is to be worshiped
while also saying:
I will pursue another spiritual reality through meditation, ritual, healing, guidance, or esoteric practice.
Those two systems aren’t merely different flavors of spirituality.
They have different foundations of spiritual knowledge, different understandings of reality, and different approaches to the supernatural.
Christianity says:
Christ is enough.
Jediism says:
Explore the Force.
Christianity says:
God has revealed truth.
Jediism says:
Discover your understanding of the Force.
Christianity says:
Test spiritual claims against God’s Word.
Jediism encourages spiritual exploration and personal experience of the Force.
Those aren’t compatible foundations.
So I don’t believe the right question is:
“Can I be a Christian and enjoy Jedi philosophy?”
Sure.
The real question is:
“Can I practice Jediism as a religion while remaining faithful to biblical Christianity?”
From a Reformed Christian perspective, my answer is no.
Not because Star Wars is evil.
Not because every person involved in Jediism is evil.
Not because the IJF is necessarily a cult.
But because Christ does not share His place as Lord with another spiritual system.
“You shall have no other gods before me.”
— Exodus 20:3
Christ alone. Scripture alone. Faith alone. Grace alone. To God alone be the glory.
I know labels aren’t that important but I’d really like to know if possible. Please be nice, I’m new to all this. Thanks!
How do you guys reconcile the differences in the resurrection narratives in the gospels? This is something I’m struggling with a bit, thank you for the responses 👐🏽.
How can theism still be successful or at least have supporters with its more likely than not that a B Theory of time exists and ruins the cosmological argument for God. Plus the argument for contingency always runs into the problem of modal collapse. At this point I feel like giving up on theism as these problems make theism unbelievably, theoretically, and philosophically absurd.
I am reading the first 5 books of the bible - pentateuch and I am encountering the genealogies a lot.
What is the importance of genealogy?
and what is the cultural significance of it in the ancient culture?
I read exodus chapter 3 so many times. But many times I wondered why there is even a burning bush...
so, I am trying to find why? Does it represent something?
“I and the Father are one,” said Jesus. (John 10:30) Some quote this text to prove that Jesus and his Father are two parts of a triune God. Is that what Jesus meant by this statement?
Let us take a look at the context. In verse 25, Jesus stated that he did works in the name of his Father. From verses 27 to 29, he talked about symbolic sheep whom his Father had given him. Both statements by Jesus would have made little sense to his listeners if he and his Father were one and the same person. Instead, Jesus said, in effect, ‘My Father and I are so close-knit that no one can take away the sheep from me, just as no one can take them away from my Father.’ It is much like a son saying to his father’s enemy, ‘If you attack my father, you attack me.’ No one would conclude that this son and his father were the same person. But all could perceive the strong bond of unity between them.
Jesus and his Father, Jehovah God, are also “one” in the sense that they are in complete agreement as to intentions, standards, and values. In contrast with Satan the Devil and the first human couple, Adam and Eve, Jesus never wanted to become independent of God. “The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing,” Jesus explained. “For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner.”—John 5:19; 14:10; 17:8.
This strong bond of unity, however, does not make God and his Son, Jesus, indistinguishable from each other. They are two individuals. Each one has his own distinct personality. Jesus has his own feelings, thoughts, experiences, and free will. Nevertheless, he chose to submit his will to that of his Father. According to Luke 22:42, Jesus said: “Let, not my will, but yours take place.” These words would have been meaningless if his will could not differ from his Father’s. If Jesus and his Father were really one person, why did Jesus pray to God and humbly admit to not knowing things that only his Father knew?—Matthew 24:36.
Members of many religions worship gods that are depicted as quarreling and fighting with their own family members. In Greek mythology, for example, Cronus overthrew his father, Uranus, and devoured his own children. How different this is from the oneness based on true love between Jehovah God and his Son, Jesus! And how this unity endears them to us! In fact, we have the incomparable privilege of being in union with these two highest Persons in all the universe. Regarding his followers, Jesus prayed: “I make request . . . that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us.”—John 17:20, 21.
Thus, when Jesus said, “I and the Father are one,” he was speaking, not of a mysterious Trinity, but of a wonderful unity—the closest bond possible between two persons.
Hey, I’m kind of stuck on this point a little bit and was wondering if I could get some advice on how you guys navigate the fact that Christ’s divinity was something that evolved over time, and wasn’t necessarily what the historical Jesus himself actually did.
I personally place my faith in the Resurrection as being foundational, which I personally think has a robust case. I’ve tried to reconcile parts of the gospel that are mythologized or been read into the Old Testament text. When I read Matthew for the first time, I didn’t realize how much emphasis was on things being prophesied. E.g by Isiah.
There are also parts in which things are borrowed from one gospel to another or things that didn’t directly occur. For example, the graves opening up and the dead walking around - surely several independent sources would have written about something like that.
If I’ve got anything wrong, apologies, I’ve not studied properly the scholarship but it’s a pattern I’ve noticed that professors of religion mention about the gospels. This is not to say that they are entirely unreliable, for example they all agree on women being the first to see the empty tomb, which would have been something odd to make up in that social context - considering women’s position.
I just feel that to be intellectually honest in my faith journey and ask others about questions I have. This isn’t to sound snarky or edgy, but I believe or like to think that God would understand how our different minds process different bits of information, and that some things will confuse us a little, but nonetheless we try to make sense out of it the best way we can. I am autistic and adhd diagnosed so I tend to be very analytical.
See the response from u/Deer_Hart, he explained it better than I did
"I and the Father are one,” said Jesus. (John 10:30) Some quote this text to prove that Jesus and his Father are two parts of a triune God. Is that what Jesus meant by this statement?
Let us take a look at the context. In verse 25, Jesus stated that he did works in the name of his Father. From verses 27 to 29, he talked about symbolic sheep whom his Father had given him. Both statements by Jesus would have made little sense to his listeners if he and his Father were one and the same person. Instead, Jesus said, in effect, ‘My Father and I are so close-knit that no one can take away the sheep from me, just as no one can take them away from my Father.’ It is much like a son saying to his father’s enemy, ‘If you attack my father, you attack me.’ No one would conclude that this son and his father were the same person. But all could perceive the strong bond of unity between them.
Jesus and his Father, Jehovah God, are also “one” in the sense that they are in complete agreement as to intentions, standards, and values. In contrast with Satan the Devil and the first human couple, Adam and Eve, Jesus never wanted to become independent of God. “The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing,” Jesus explained. “For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner.”—John 5:19; 14:10; 17:8.
This strong bond of unity, however, does not make God and his Son, Jesus, indistinguishable from each other. They are two individuals. Each one has his own distinct personality. Jesus has his own feelings, thoughts, experiences, and free will. Nevertheless, he chose to submit his will to that of his Father. According to Luke 22:42, Jesus said: “Let, not my will, but yours take place.” These words would have been meaningless if his will could not differ from his Father’s. If Jesus and his Father were really one person, why did Jesus pray to God and humbly admit to not knowing things that only his Father knew?—Matthew 24:36.
Members of many religions worship gods that are depicted as quarreling and fighting with their own family members. In Greek mythology, for example, Cronus overthrew his father, Uranus, and devoured his own children. How different this is from the oneness based on true love between Jehovah God and his Son, Jesus! And how this unity endears them to us! In fact, we have the incomparable privilege of being in union with these two highest Persons in all the universe. Regarding his followers, Jesus prayed: “I make request . . . that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us.”—John 17:20, 21.
Thus, when Jesus said, “I and the Father are one,” he was speaking, not of a mysterious Trinity, but of a wonderful unity—the closest bond possible between two persons.
I have spent a long time wrestling with the hardest questions I know how to ask.
I struggled deeply with Calvinism. The idea of a God who ordains every detail of every life — every desire, every failure, every death — felt not only intellectually strained but morally horrific. It seemed to erase real responsibility, turn the call to repentance into theater, and make God the ultimate source of the very evil He condemns. I could not square that portrait with the God who speaks of justice, mercy, love, and hatred of the blood of the innocent. The attempts to qualify the plain language of Scripture so that it fits the system only increased my distrust.
I considered the problem of evil from several angles. I can accept that God, seeing every possible future, may choose the one that most fully displays both His justice and His mercy. I can accept that intense evil sharpens the thirst for justice and makes the final triumph of goodness more decisive. I can accept that we did not ask to be born, yet existence itself was not a trap — we are the ones who turned a world made for community and love into something darker. What I cannot accept is a God who authors the wickedness and then punishes the creatures for being what He made them to be.
These walls pushed me toward agnosticism. The deeper question became consciousness itself: how a physical world produces subjects who suffer, invent meaning, invent God, and then demand that reality answer for itself. Belief in God still feels like the most reasonable response to the existence of mind and moral demand — until the theological costs become too high.
Yet I cannot force a blind “yes.” I am constitutionally unable to shut off the questioning. Pretending would feel like a betrayal of the very mind I was given. So I am left with this decision:
I will follow God’s Word under the assumption that this is something I must do as a human being prone to evil. I will attend His call, knowing He guides even though He has no obligation to do so. I will try to obey what the Bible clearly teaches and question everything that must be questioned. I will wrestle until I die, but I will never lock myself inside a human system.
From this day I am simply a Christian. Not a Calvinist, not a Molinist, not a Baptist, not a Catholic. I will learn from any tradition that confesses Christ as Lord, the Father as the Author, and the Holy Spirit as the Comforter — all of them God. I will keep what is blatantly biblical and discard what cannot bear the weight of the text.
I will trust that God is good, just, and caring. That His wrath is not unmerited. That He hates evil, chaos, and the destruction of the innocent. That He desires an ordered world in which His creation can live with Him. I will read Scripture expecting a God who wants to be with me not because I am special, but because I am His. A God who works to preserve whatever remains of the image of God in me. A God to whom I can respond because He is trustworthy.
I will not respond to a tyrant.
If He is who He says He is, then I will be fine. I will keep walking, keep questioning, and keep trusting that the One who made the mind that cannot stop asking is not threatened by the questions.
I argue that Theism is currently unjustifiable. Therefore, we should withold belief in a Theistic God at this time:
P1) Theistic Gods are claimed to affect the observable world; such claims cannot be justified without empirical evidence.
P2) No sufficient empirical evidence of divine effects have been clearly demonstrated.
C) Therefore, belief in Theistic Gods as beings that affect the observable world is not justified.
Give me your best!
This proposal presents a philosophical model for understanding existence based on a central premise:
Absolute nothingness never existed. The Most High—the ultimate conscious reality—has always existed.
Rather than viewing creation as something appearing from literal nothing, this framework proposes that everything we experience represents expressions, distinctions, and manifestations arising within an eternal underlying reality.
Within this model, polarity is one of the earliest forms of distinction. Once distinction is possible, relationships, information, patterns, change, physical structure, life, and individual conscious perspectives can emerge.
The purpose of this proposal is not to claim that this model has been scientifically proven. It is to present a coherent hypothesis that can be examined through philosophy, theology, physics, mathematics, information theory, and consciousness research.
1. The Central Problem
Humanity has made extraordinary progress explaining how the universe behaves, but several fundamental questions remain:
Why does anything exist at all?
Could absolute nothingness ever truly exist?
Why are there consistent laws governing reality?
What is consciousness?
Why can conscious beings comprehend the universe?
Is consciousness produced by matter, or could consciousness be more fundamental than matter?
How does unity give rise to multiplicity?
The proposed framework begins by reconsidering the assumption that reality originated from absolute nothingness.
2. The Foundational Premise: The One Always Was
The model proposes an eternal foundation referred to here as the One or the Most High.
The Most High does not emerge from nothing, because there was never a state in which absolutely nothing existed.
The Most High simply is.
Under this premise, asking what created the ultimate Source creates an infinite regress: if another thing created the Source, that other thing becomes the deeper source requiring explanation.
Therefore, the ultimate foundation of reality must either be eternal or exist necessarily rather than receiving existence from something prior.
This framework proposes that this eternal foundation is conscious.
3. Nothingness and Existence
“Nothing” is normally understood as the complete absence of everything:
No space.
No time.
No energy.
No matter.
No information.
No laws.
No possibility.
No consciousness.
If such absolute nothingness truly existed, there would seemingly be no mechanism, law, potential, or cause through which something could emerge.
The model therefore proposes:
Absolute nothingness is not the origin of reality because absolute nothingness was never an actual state of reality.
Existence is fundamental.
4. The Principle of Distinction
If ultimate reality begins as One, the emergence of multiplicity requires distinction.
Distinction does not necessarily mean that the One physically divides into independent ultimate beings.
Instead, the One can express differences within itself.
A fundamental distinction might be represented as:
This / Not-This
or, within consciousness:
Knower / Known
Once distinction exists, information becomes possible because one state can now differ from another.
5. Polarity
Polarity represents a fundamental form of distinction.
Examples include:
Positive / Negative
Expansion / Contraction
Presence / Absence
Stillness / Motion
Unity / Multiplicity
Potential / Manifestation
The proposal does not require every apparent opposite to be an independent force. Some polarities may simply represent different states or degrees of the same underlying reality.
Polarity therefore becomes a mechanism through which unity can produce meaningful differentiation.
6. Consciousness and Self-Awareness
The model proposes that consciousness is not merely a late product of biological evolution.
Instead:
Consciousness is fundamental to reality.
Individual consciousness would therefore represent localized perspectives or expressions of a deeper universal consciousness.
The emergence of individual minds would not represent consciousness being created from unconscious matter. It would represent fundamental consciousness experiencing reality through increasingly differentiated perspectives.
This creates the possibility of:
The One knowing itself through the many.
7. From Unity to Physical Reality
The conceptual progression proposed by this framework is:
The One / Most High
↓
Self-Awareness
↓
Distinction
↓
Polarity
↓
Relationship
↓
Information
↓
Pattern and Order
↓
Change
↓
Space and Time
↓
Energy and Matter
↓
Complexity
↓
Life
↓
Individual Conscious Perspectives
↓
Conscious beings recognizing and investigating their Source
This sequence should currently be understood as a metaphysical framework rather than an established scientific causal chain.
A major goal of further development would be determining which transitions can be expressed logically, mathematically, or scientifically.
8. Reinterpreting the Big Bang
Within this framework, the Big Bang would not represent something mysteriously appearing from absolute nothing.
Nor would it necessarily represent the moment the Most High first became conscious.
The Most High and fundamental consciousness would already be eternal.
Instead, the early universe could represent a physical manifestation or transition within an underlying eternal reality.
The scientific Big Bang model describes the evolution of the early observable universe. This proposal attempts to address a different question:
What, if anything, ultimately grounds the physical reality described by cosmology?
The two questions should not be confused.
9. A Possible Purpose of Individual Consciousness
One consequence of the framework is a feedback relationship:
The One expresses the many.
The many develop consciousness.
Conscious beings investigate existence.
Through those perspectives, reality becomes capable of observing and understanding itself locally.
Human curiosity about existence could therefore represent something deeper than an accidental intellectual activity.
We may be individual perspectives through which an underlying consciousness experiences, examines, and understands its own manifestation.
This remains a philosophical implication rather than an experimentally established conclusion.
10. Relationship to Science
This proposal should not present metaphysical claims as established scientific facts.
Instead, it should identify possible points of dialogue with scientific research, including:
Cosmology — the origin and development of the observable universe.
Quantum physics — the fundamental description of physical states and interactions.
Symmetry breaking — how differentiated physical states emerge from underlying symmetries.
Information theory — whether information has a fundamental role in physical reality.
Complexity and emergence — how increasingly organized systems develop.
Neuroscience — relationships between brains and conscious experience.
Consciousness studies — whether consciousness can be completely explained through physical processes.
Science can test physical predictions. Philosophy can examine logical foundations and assumptions. Theology can address questions concerning ultimate Source, meaning, and divine reality.
This framework proposes a conversation among these disciplines rather than treating them as interchangeable.
11. The Core Hypothesis
The proposal can ultimately be condensed into one hypothesis:
Reality did not emerge from absolute nothingness. An eternal conscious foundation—the One or Most High—has always existed. Through distinction within that unity, polarity, relationship, information, order, and manifestation become possible. The physical universe and individual conscious beings may therefore represent differentiated expressions of one underlying conscious reality.
12. Questions for Further Development
For this idea to become a rigorous philosophical theory rather than only a concept, several questions must be addressed:
Why must the eternal foundation be conscious rather than non-conscious?
Can absolute nothingness be demonstrated to be logically impossible?
How can distinction arise within absolute unity without contradicting unity?
Is polarity fundamental, or does something more basic generate polarity?
How does information relate to consciousness?
How could consciousness produce or ground physical properties?
Why do mathematical relationships describe physical reality so effectively?
Can any part of the framework generate predictions distinguishable from existing theories?
What observations could potentially falsify portions of the model?
How does individual consciousness relate to the proposed universal consciousness?
Conclusion
The central claim of this proposal is not that humanity has already discovered the ultimate nature of reality.
It is that we may need to reconsider the starting assumption.
Instead of:
Nothing → Something → Consciousness
the framework proposes:
Eternal Conscious Reality → Distinction → Manifestation → Individual Consciousness
Under this model, existence never emerged from absolute nothing.
Existence always was.
The universe would then be not the creation of existence itself, but an expression of an eternal Source—the transformation of unity into distinguishable experience without the underlying One ever ceasing to be One.
The ultimate question therefore changes from:
“How did something come from nothing?”
to:
“How does the eternal One express itself as everything?”
The Bible tells us that this world is evil and it's the devil's playground. We're warned to reject the impulse to give in to worldly pleasures and desires of the flesh. Jesus says that he wants nothing to do with anyone who has any appreciation for anything or anyone here, which makes sense -this is hell. As such, should we not want out? And if we know death is the way out, should we not reject this world and opt-out?
I'm asking purely out of philosophical and theological curiosity, not for any other reason. Just a hypothetical for analysis.
Whenever some tragedy happens, people are always quick to comment about it being the result of the divine justice. I really don't get it.
People will claim God is handing out punishments, generally over the most petty, insignificant thing imaginable. As if there are scoreboard of cruelties.
Why the God kills not Netanyahu on the live tv then?
Could not be there something wrong?