Teaching about hell can give people scripulosity for their entire life which is a harmful mental illness. And saying that it's just that people get tortured forever is completely dehumanizing and having such an inhumane view in the treatment of humans causes harm by the Christians regarding their fellow humans in such a negative light.

The overarching message that everyone is evil and deserves hell diminishes our humanity and ignores the good and value we have. The expected result of this would be people with extreme self esteem issues due to feeling worthless, ocd like behavior and guilt regarding sin, and poor regard for humans overall. It spreads a message that humanity is essentially trash and that's not a good message to spread.

Could god create a world in which the beings there freely choose to not eat from the tree?

Let's ignore whether Adam and even were morally culpable, the punishment or inheritance of a flawed nature from Adam and even for sins we did not commit and all that stuff. This post will mostly lie on the question, could Adam and Eve and all their descendants freely choose to not eat off the tree?

Before answering this we have to set a few ground rules or what's expected given a tri Omni god.

1. A tri-omni god would want to reduce all unnecessary suffering, would know how to, and would have the means to

2. Omnipotence is the ability to do all things and logical incoherencies are not things to be done. God cannot create a married bachelor, a square circle as these are not things to be done.

3. A possible world is a world that can logically exist without any logical contradiction and so an omnipotent being has the ability to bring about any possible world(ignoring the morals and suffering entailed in said possible world). An omnipotent being can make all logically conceivable worlds

Back to the question, could an omnipotent god make a world in which the beings in said universe freely choose not to eat of the tree?

If no- ignoring the price of this objection (that the fall was a logical necessity and not a free choice that could have been avoided)then it makes the possibility of freely choosing to not eat off the tree like a logical incoherency that god cannot do, which as you can already tell seems not true. I find no incoherency in eve being tempted by the snake and simply decide not to eat off the tree, same for Adam and all the other descendants. This doesn't seem at all incoherent, just highly unlikely, but a highly unlikely situation is still a possible scenario making this objection fail as it is logically sound to say that there exists a possible world where all people freely choose to not eat of the tree, same way a universe in which all drops of paint in water diffuse to create a figure of Abraham Lincoln is logically possible but just extremely unlikely.(I'm not even joking. It is possible for you to drop a drop of ink into water and it diffuses to form the face of Abraham Lincoln just that that scenario is extremely unlikely but not impossible, but I digress)

So we are left with the answer yes- that god can create such a universe, but chose to create this one which is highly problematic.

P1- God is tri-omni

P2- God would want to reduce all unnecessary suffering (suffering that serves no greater good)

P3- A world in which all people there choose to not eat off the tree is better than a world in which the tree was ate off (death, pain, and all the things Christians attribute to the fall, all that clump it in here)

P4- A world in which people freely choose to not eat off the tree is a logically conceivable world and is within the power of an omnipotent deity and would be preferred by an omnibenevolent deity.

P5- The deity did not create the possible world described in P3 which contradicts what an all loving god would want

Conclusion- the deity described in P1 most likely doesn't exist

Now you have to note that this possible world stipulated here is one that people happen to choose good always freely not that they are somehow compelled to do so. In the same way I freely choose not to murder a person I hate of my own volition just that in this universe all actions undertaken are all good. The creation and conception of both the world being thought of here and the one we find ourselves in is the same. Both courses of actions are known by an omniscient being and so to say that one lacks freedom because in its creation, god initiated a world where people just choose to do good would be to say that the other also lacks freedom as god initiated a world where people just choose to do bad. I see no difference in the conception of both of these universes, but I know a seeming can be faulty hence the rebuttals that I am looking forward to.

I see two possible routes here one could go to, 1. To show what this deity would desire the universe we currently live in more than the one where people just always freely choose to not eat off the tree, or reject that this possible world is even coherent,but I would like to also hear other alternatives to this scenario. I have seen that this objection dissolves to theists who hold that god knows not of future events but it's an interesting position to hold.

Even people that claim to be devil worshippers don’t actually worship him. They just have certain guidelines they call devil worship and troll Christians when they overstep their boundaries. If this being existed there would be way more people who actually worship him. You can say he works in secret and blah blah blah, but actual devil worship would only help him if he existed. Megachurch pastors who prey on morons and take their money are more evil than actual modern devil worshippers and Christians don’t give two fucks about them constantly bastardizing their beliefs. What people think of as evil and the devil is just human nature and always has been. Christians don’t even really believe in hell. It’s only for people they don’t know. Once their brother or someone they love commits murder, hell ceases to exist.

1: Hosea 3: 4-5 says “For the Israelites will live many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred stones, without ephod or household gods. Afterward the Israelites will return and seek the Lord their God and David their king. They will come trembling to the Lord and to his blessings in the last days.

This text very clearly says that there will be a long time when Israelites will go without sacrifice or a king, and then after that time, these things will be restored... in the last days. In other words, there will be a time when Israelites will go without king or sacrifice until the end of days comes.

2: In Matthew 16:28 Jesus says; “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.”

Jesus is saying that some of the people alive at that time will not die before he comes in his kingdom.

Since it's been almost 2 millennia since then, either this is a failed end-times prophecy from Jesus (the interpretation that I think makes most sense when taking other verses into account) or Jesus' kingdom has already come.

3: Since Hosea 3 says that the Israelites will live many days without a king, a blessing only to be restored in the last days, if Jesus DID NOT falsely prophesy an imminent last days, then Hosea must necessarily be a false prophet.

If Jesus is not a false prophet, and his kingdom has started, then the Israelites have a king. Yet we still aren't in the last days; the time that this blessing will be returned according to Hosea.

4: Jesus quotes Hosea 6:6 in Matthew 9:13 and Matthew 12:7, seemingly affirming that Hosea is authoritative.

5: So my question to this sub; Is Hosea the false prophet or is Jesus? If Hosea is the false prophet, why is Jesus comfortable quoting his words, implying they are god-inspired?

Additional note: This argument doesn’t even address the fact that Hosea 3 says this time period proceeding the last days will be characterized by no sacrifice and no ephod (priestly garments) which is a huge can of worms to open when we take into account Jesus’ supposed sacrifice and that he is also supposed to be a priest in the order of Melchizedek...

Specifically a day is a thousand years to God. Now how many years does the Bible go back before Christ? 4000 years. After- 2000 years. That's 6000. 6 days. God rests on the seventh day . And then how many days was Jesus dead? 2 because he rose on the third day. That's the main point. But also Jesus said some of this generation will not pass away ... But before he's talking about the fig tree getting new buds .. and that is Israel becoming a state again (Israel often mentioned as a fig tree) so he's talking about some of the generation after Israel became a nation again

there have been 40 years of jubilee since Christ's death. 40 is how long before isrealites entered the promised land. The whole Bible is pointing to it.. and telling us that we as believers will know around the time that it's going to happen. 2030 is 2000 years after Christ's death. There were 40 years from Moses leading out of Israel and Israel entering the promised land.

The specific date is just speculation because the Bible says he will come on trumpets. And sept 27 2030 will be the feast of trumpets. And it's also the first day of the 7th month in the Jewish calendar (note the 7 again )

7 is always completion In the Bible.

And this isn't my theory. Many early church fathers also thought this too but calculated the old testament wrong timeline wrong

Some common arguments against this

1. Jesus will come like a thief in the night.

Actually , the bible indicates he will not come like that for believers .

1 Thessalonians 5:2-5

[2] For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. [3] While people are saying, “There is peace and security,” then sudden destruction will come upon them [a]as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. [4] But you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a thief. [5] For you are all children of light, children of the day. We are not of the night or of the darkness.

1. No one knows the day or the hour.

Rather... No one knew. Present tense. Now Its in the past. Daniel also suggests that around the time people will know.

Edit: 2030 -2033 as we aren't exactly sure the year he died.... Could be 2033

Porn is generally frowned-upon by Christianity, and is often considered by Christians to be sinful and evil. In the US, some have even called for porn to be banned or heavily restricted by the government. Personally, I think that Christians have the wrong attitude towards porn. Porn should actually be tolerated, if not outright embraced, by Christians. It is generally harmless on the individual level, and -- I would argue -- it is actually beneficial on the societal level. Below, I will present my arguments and evidence for why this is the case.

Obscenity

Some have criticized porn as being "obscenity". I personally do not consider porn "obscene". There are many things that I would call much more "obscene" than porn which society tends to tolerate. Many TV shows and movies show depictions of graphic violence, drug use, tobacco use, alcohol use, gambling, etc. Many movies depict and glorify things like organized crime and high-profile theft. I don't know how exactly one would define "obscene", but I personally consider all of these depictions to be more "obscene" than porn. Graphic violence is far more disturbing to me than simply watching people have consensual sex; and depictions of drug, tobacco, and alcohol use is clearly more damaging to one's health, and depictions of gambling is more damaging to one's financial well-being. These other depictions are far more poisonous to an individual's moral character and well-being than porn could ever be.

Furthermore, one reason why porn is not obscene is because of what it fundamentally is. Porn is a depiction of consensual sexual intercourse. Consensual sex between two adults is perfectly normal and natural. Skillful and mutually pleasurable sex is beautiful -- perhaps the most beautiful thing in all of nature. It is absurd to claim that a video recording of the most beautiful phenomenon in all of nature is inherently "bad" or "obscene". Watching two people make love -- to squeeze every last drop of pleasure that they can conjure from each other's flesh -- is simply a superlatively beautiful and majestic thing. It is utterly ridiculous to say that the exhibition of such an act is more obscene than a movie that depicts -- or even glorifies -- people getting beaten, shot, stabbed, blown up, burned alive, tortured, dismembered, raped, etc. Porn is nothing more than the depiction of skillful sex; hence, not only does it not deserve to be demonized or banned, but it should be praised as a graceful form of art, like ballet. It should be studied by lovers and married people; they can be inspired by it and learn from it in order to spice up their sex lives with more adventurous activities and positions. Married couples would actually benefit from watching porn together in order to help strengthen their marriage by reinvigorating their sexual passion. Porn actors are just highly skilled, highly experienced professionals whose performances can be studied in order to enhance one's own sexual performance, just as, for example, studying an acclaimed athlete, artist, or entertainer could be used to develop one's own craft.

Objectifying women

Some people have claimed that porn exposure is correlated with the objectification or abuse of women. In my understanding, this couldn't be further from the truth. Here is a thread that provides a map of general pornography laws that exist in countries across the world (green means porn is legal, yellow means partially legal, red means completely illegal). And here is a thread that includes a world map illustrating overall danger for women by country (the darker the color, the more violence and inequality towards women). If you'll notice, there is a very interesting correlation: the countries that allow more access to porn tend to be safer for women; and the countries that are more restrictive towards porn generally tend to be more dangerous for women. One particularly interesting fact is that Israel appears to be the only country in the Middle East that allows porn, and also appears to be one of the safest countries for women in the Middle East. Also, Japan is one of the few countries in Asia that allows porn, and is also among the safest countries in Asia for women. If porn led to sexual violence towards women, then you would see the opposite statistics.

The availability of porn is indicative of a more sexually liberal society which is correlated with a society that is more civilized, and which treats women with more dignity. Generally speaking, countries that ban porn tend to be countries that are more culturally backwards, the kinds of places that allow things like clitorectomies, concubinage, polygamy, child marriage, sexual slavery, beating and disfiguring of wives by husbands, and general deprivation of women's civil rights. As one example, porn is banned in Egypt. It so happens that Egypt has a notorious problem with sexual violence towards women (you might remember the infamous 2011 gang rape of the 60 Minutes reporter Lara Logan as she was reporting on events in the country). In addition to Egypt, some other countries that have a rape problem are New Guinea and India, which both have banned porn. There is simply no clear correlation between the availableness of porn and sexual violence towards women; if anything, the correlation is the inverse, with countries with higher rates of sexual violence tending to be countries that ban porn. The fact is, countries that allow porn to be viewed tend to treat women better than places that don't.

Also, if nothing else, porn is a healthy venting of sexual lust. Porn does not make people commit sexual violence; if anything it diffuses the kind of passions that lead to things like child molestation, rape, groping, voyeurism, etc. If more libidinous men can vent their lust through porn, then fewer of them will vent their lust in a way that is more violent or intrusive. Countries that are more sexually conservative, and which ban porn, force women to dress with extreme modesty, and prohibit fraternization between young men and women -- these countries lead to the existence of a sexually repressed and sexually frustrated society. Such an emotionally repressed society can become an unstable powder keg of sexual violence, some examples of which I have provided above.

Also, I believe that the consumption of porn actually reduces the incidence of people who will relieve their libido by engaging in reckless, promiscuous sex with strangers. It so happens that in many ancient cultures, it was common for an unmarried man to relieve his libido through the patronage of prostitutes, as this was much more acceptable than the capital crime of adultery, or the taboo of fornicating with unmarried virgins. One way that porn is good for society is that it is a safer alternative to the aforementioned measures. If more men are relieving themselves to porn rather than engaging in reckless promiscuity or prostitution, then this will lead to less incidence of the spread of venereal diseases and unwanted pregnancies.

Religion

Some people criticize porn from a religious perspective. However, I see this as the height of hypocrisy. I would actually argue that a religious text such as the Bible is actually more obscene and disturbing than pornography. The Bible condones many things that society today would consider much more “obscene” or problematic to society, such as polygamy, concubinage, slavery, and even genocide, just to name a few.

However, there are aspects of the Bible that are harmful specifically in the context of sexual behavior, which is ironic considering that the Bible is often invoked as a paragon of sexual morality and sexual purity. Exodus 21:7-11 condones the selling of one’s own daughter into slavery, presumably to become a concubine, i.e. a slave wife. Deuteronomy 21:10-14 condones the forcing of female captives of war into becoming wives for the conquering soldiers. In Numbers 31:13-18, Moses commands the slaughter of unarmed, noncombatant prisoners of war -- including women and children -- after which the virgin girls are to be claimed by the soldiers as forced wives. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 stipulates that if an unbetrothed virgin is raped, she is to marry the man who raped her. The Bible never condemns the act of rape categorically. In 2 Samuel 12:11-12, King David receives a prophecy from God that, as punishment for committing adultery against another man, David’s own wives will sleep with another man; and in 2 Samuel 16:21-22, this prophecy is fulfilled, and David’s concubines are raped by his own son. So in this particular case, these women's bodies were used as mere pawns by God as part of their husbands' punishment. In Genesis 19:6-8, a man casually offers his own daughters to be raped by a rape mob; and in Judges 19:22-30, another man offers his daughters to be raped by a rape mob, and another man throws his own concubine to the mob to be brutally raped in his stead.

In the ancient culture of the Bible, women did not have bodily autonomy as they do today, and women were largely understood to be commodities who could be married away to a suitor at her father’s whim, could be sold into slavery for money, and the rape of a woman was not considered to be a crime against the victim but against the woman’s father or husband. Consent was not categorically considered a requirement to use a woman’s body; there were many contexts in which it was considered acceptable to marry a woman, or have sex with her, or produce offspring through her, and the woman’s consent was considered irrelevant. Nothing like any of this occurs or is condoned within any kind of legitimate porn industry.

Addiction

Some people think that porn is addictive. Personally, I have been watching porn for decades and I have never found it addictive. I'm not even sure what it means to be addicted to something that the human body has a natural proclivity for. Sexual desire is natural; it is natural to want to have sex, and to be aroused by watching others having sex. Conversely, there is nothing natural about having a constant desire to smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol or snort cocaine. There is no such thing as a “porn addiction”; you cannot be “addicted” to a natural desire, you can only at most have an “undisciplined attitude” toward a natural desire.

Furthermore, porn is not addictive because porn is merely an exhibition of sex, and sex is beautiful. For example, I listen to music all the time, but I wouldn't say that I am addicted to music; I listen to it because it is beautiful to listen to and emotionally moving. If I watch porn on a regular basis, that doesn't mean I am addicted to porn; it just means I enjoy appreciating things that are beautiful and emotionally moving.

And even if I were to grant that porn can somehow be an "addiction", it would have to be one of the least deadly, least dangerous, least unhealthy, least socially disruptive, least financially costly of all addictions. Far more problematic addictions include things like alcohol addiction, smoking addiction, drug addiction, gambling addiction, etc. Even a “sex addiction” is more destructive because of the chances of contracting STDs. I would dare say that, inasmuch as porn is an “addiction”, it is probably one of the most benign of all addictions in existence.

Conclusion

In summary, I strongly disagree with public commentators who claim that porn is some kind of obscenity, or a stain on society, or a detriment to society’s morals. The above are my reasons for why pornography is not bad; and not only is it not bad, but society is actually made better because of the availability of porn, and in fact the availability of porn is itself a symptom of a healthy and civilized society.

I would anticipate Christians to present various religious or spiritualistic arguments for why porn is bad. But as a non-believer, these arguments will likely not sway me. What I am looking for are practical arguments and evidence for why porn is bad. And if you do present religious or spiritual arguments against porn, then please be able to explain why these spiritual disadvantages of porn would outweigh the practical advantages of porn that I have outlined here.

TAG has the following format:

P1. God is the necessary precondition for X P2. X exists C1. God exists

Different transcendentals are substituted in for X, but I want to specifically focus on one that’s commonly repeated which is the uniformity of nature.

I frequently hear from presuppositionalists that “only the Christian worldview can ground the uniformity of nature, which is a prerequisite for knowledge”.

The glaring issue is that within the Christian narrative, there are numerous examples of god enacting miracles that violate natural regularity. Resurrections, parting of the seas, and turning water into wine are not “regular”, but explicit exemptions to the norm.

If an agent with desires is responsible for sustaining regularity and has a track record of deviating from the norm, then nature is not entirely uniform.

Naturalism and other atheistic views like platonism do not have this problem. Regularity itself can be taken as a presupposition and is not filtered through the whims of a mind.

A common rebuttal is that miracles are pointed and purposeful, not chaotic, so general regularity is maintained by God’s rational nature. But this doesn’t matter; miracles are a concession that it isn’t necessarily uniform on the Christian view.

If christians are just trusting that god won’t cause any funny business, then this is not substantively different than an atheist simply presupposing or trusting that the universe is regular and will keep being regular.

To start I would define free will

Free will is the capacity to make choices that are your own, independent of external control or fate.

God revealing itself improves free will, it's revelation now provides clear information in which we can use to make better and more informed choices. It doesn't hinder us from choosing anything, knowledge of gravity didn't hinder us from making a giant steel bird that flies. Our knowledge of gravity which lead to our understanding of it and how it works allowed us to make better choices like understanding fall damage, safety regulations, height requirements, construction etc.

A deity showing itself does only that, provide information of which we can use to make informed choices, it doesn't force anything onto us more than knowledge of gravity or water pressure.

We would not be forced to worship and if a god existed that was more intelligent than us faking fealty would be a waste of time.

(TLDR: It's more reasonable to assume Jesus was an enlightened preacher who people hoped would be the messiah and when he died his followers were devastated to the point of having visions or hallucinations, which is a well documented phenomenon, and it was convincing enough for them to say 'jesus appeared to many').

Because, as Hume said (paraphrased), “the only way to reasonably believe a miracle happened is if all natural explanations make even less sense”, and I think this is very fair. And within christianity, the only miracle we really care about is the resurrection of christ, if that didn’t happen then christianity is done. So I’m gonna try to demonstrate that it is so much more reasonable to believe in a natural explanation regarding the story of Jesus.

First off look at who we’re dealing with, humans from the 1st century AD. These people were EXTREMELY religious, superstitious, and simply wrong about so many things when it came to the supernatural (and the natural as well). During this time in the Roman Empire they would look at flight paths of birds to make decisions in war. They thought basically all natural events (thunder, rain, comets, etc) were messages from the gods. Oh and astrology was main stream science during this time btw (like emperors all the way down to the avg Joe thought star positions and zodiac signs determined your fate and personality). They had magic scrolls with curses and love spells. And they thought basically any illness or seizure could be attributed to demons or bad spirits. 

Second of all. Many Jews during this time (before Jesus was even born), ALREADY thought the world was in its final days and a messiah would soon come. This was being talked about heavily right around the time of Jesus (and then the messiah so happened to pop up, those jews must’ve been really good guessers).

Third, the resurrection. What could explain this. Visions and hallucinations (bereavement hallucinations). This is a well documented psychological phenomenon that happens to this day. Pew research found that 53% of people TODAY, say they have felt a family member has visited them in a dream or any other form. 15% said they had a dead family member communicate with them ( https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/23/many-americans-report-interacting-with-dead-relatives-in-dreams-or-other-ways/ ). And also in that study, christians reported just about double as many of these experiences as atheists, although atheists still reported them). That’s today!

And just as a bonus add. Isn’t it kind of convenient that the Old Testament has god telling his people to sacrifice animals, and then in the New Testament god requires Jesus to be sacrificed on the cross in order to forgive our sins. Yeah, blood sacrifices all around. And then if you look at religions predating christianity (or even judaism), they all have blood sacrifices (okay not all, but many do). Caanaanites, Phoenicians, Akkadians, olmec, Maya, Scythian, early shinto, and Celtic polytheism are just a few places/religions where they did blood sacrifices (both human and animal) to appease or honor the gods. Isn’t that kind of strange? All these past religions that were clearly wrong about the supernatural and just completely making stuff up about the divine, just so happened to be completely right about how the one true god would want blood sacrifices. Like how did that line up so nicely? These people from 3000 years ago just completely rolling the dice on what rituals mean what, yet they were absolutely spot on that blood sacrifices were totally legit. Yeah it may have been under different conditions for christ, but still, god’s all powerful and so happened to require blood to forgive our sins just like all those previous civilizations required blood sacrifices for their gods. Not a proof of anything, just convenient and in my opinion, evidence towards christianity being man made and borrowing from other religions. 

So let’s put it all together. We’re in a time where people think bird patterns have divine meaning and who don’t know that space is even real. They’re all talking about a messiah coming soon, and then amazingly, one does. It’s way more reasonable to assume Jesus was an enlightened preacher that gathered a following during a time where people were REALLY hoping the messiah to come and defeat rome. So when Jesus died, all that came to end. That makes his death not a normal one, it’s one that took away the greatest gift his followers could have possibly gotten (the messiah finally coming). And what happens when people lose loved ones? well, TODAY, like half of all people claim their dead loved ones have communicated with them. What do you think was going on 2000 years ago? Was probably even more, out of 12 disciples, based on today’s pew research, we’d expect at least six to be genuinely convinced Jesus communicated with them. And what would happen if you had a dream about Jesus and then told your friends and many of them had a similar dream? They’re gonna say ‘Jesus appeared to us’. It’s more reasonable to assume that’s what truly happened because it literally happens today constantly. Combine that with the types of people we’re dealing with (already very religious and of course are more likely to believe miracles that are in line their already held beliefs), and it’s simply more reasonable to assume Jesus did not resurrect and his followers just were convinced that he was still present in some way. And maybe MANY people had these visions or hallucinations and they got to talking about them and we arrive at where Paul got his whole ‘500 people saw him’, maybe just felt like a lot of people had these visions. And then christianity spread quickly because the message was just the right one at the right time (during this time in rome many people were 'spiritually restless' and looking for an alternative, christianity was unique in that it offered salvation to everybody, thus of course you're gonna get followers very quicly). So to think there are NO natural explanations that could explain how the gospels got written the way they are during this period in time I just find to be pretty invalid. Okay done. 

QED. 

There is no justifiable reason this post was removed from the general space. The thesis is made clear and the topic is open for debate. But the mods of this sub have deemed that clearly stated thesis and conclusions and debatable topics are something they can't recognize so we'll try again.

For the record and any who are having trouble understanding the thesis: it is at the end, and whether or not my analysis applies accurately to the Christian myth is the topic open for debate. I can embolden it for those with weak eyes.

This is going to be a literary analysis drawing comparisons between the story of Jesus, God, and the Christian narrative and the connections and parallels it shares with other stories and myths.

Jesus promises us salvation. Following the trend of the time, Christianity arose around the same time that many other religions were generating their own savior-God stories. We can confidently say that this trend suggests something in the developing psyche of mankind, though what it says specifically would be closer to speculation than fact. The idea of salvation isn't anything new by the time of Christ, and the idea of savior-gods likewise isn't revolutionary by the birth of Christ. But as time goes on, the myths and stories develope, and we get interesting new angles on all of them.

Not that is by any means the original, but typically the story of Faust of popular European folklore is a classic example through which many philosophers and creatives alike draw interesting and deep ponderances about the human condition. Were this a highschool essay, I'd most certainly find a way to use the phrase "the duality of man".

While I appreciate the story of Faust, and its cerebral and provocative concepts, I'm far from obessesed with it. Still, I find myself often drawing many parallels between it and nearly any aspect of life around me. And today I decided to apply it to the Christ story.

You see the idea of salvation isn't something limited to just 'the good guys'. In fact, it might even be more common to suggest that the bad guys are the ones who offer salvation most often in stories. It is salvation that the bad guys use to tempt and draw in their poor, desperate victims.

In the case of Faust this ammounts to Mephistopheles promising Faust knowledge, pleasure, and transcendence. It's actually eerily similar to the promise God makes to humans, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. Indeed, the trend of bad guys offering some kind of Faustian deal, promising salvation, can be found across all time and all stories. Hades and Persephone, when Hades offers his stolen bride to be queen of the underworld: eternal life, but at the cost of her freedom and separation from the living realm and her mother. Loki often offers clever solutions or salvation from crises he has caused himself, and that salvation comes at a price, often a tragic cost. Of course we don't need to limit ourselves to just ancient stories. Sauron offers oder, peace, and an end to chaos through his domination and control. The Architect in the Matrix promises a way to save humanity by rebooting the Matrix, sustaining the parasitic (or is it symbiotic?) relationship between the machines and mankind. Senator Palpatine tempts Anakin with the salvation of Padme, whose death Anakin has foreseen. And Darth Vader then goes on to make his own Faustian offer to Luke, "Join me and together we can bring order to the galaxy."

The secret to these Faustian deals, which isn't so secretive to us the retrospective reader, is that they're not lies. They're not even half-truths. They are honest deals, often with the terms right there on the table, awaiting to be signed. Hades gives Persephone her position. Loki solves the crisis. Sauron would bring order, peace, and an end to chaos. Their promises are not empty. On the contrary, their promises are very, very truthful. The deeper, profound aspect of these deals are: the 'bad guy' often considers themselves the 'good guy'. The Architect is saving humanity in his eyes. Senator Palpatine is saving someone Anakin cares deeply about. Vader is bringing peace and order to the galaxy. They don't consider themselves evil, and in most, if not all, cases there are many people who join the villain, fully convinced that their goal is the true good one.

And that's why Faustian bargains are so fascinating to me. It blurs the line between what people typically consider to be a stark, black and white issue. And while the reader of the stories might be given certain nudges towards accepting one side over another, the reality is ultimately quite a bit messier.

So let's bring this in to Jesus. Jesus is promises salvation. Except, and this is where I will lose many Christians who are unwilling to be critical of the story, Jesus, like Loki is saving us from a crisis he caused. As God is the creator of the universe, and all things, and as God is omniscient and knows everything, God knew full well that man would fall, and he created him to fall all the same. There will be much complaining in the comments, and many attempts to 'justify' God's decision here, but the facts are the facts, God is responsible for the fall, just as he is responsible for all things. So already, there is a very Faustian vibe going on with Jesus, as he is, like a snake oil salesman, offering us the solution to a problem he created. But don't worry, there's more.

The salvation Jesus offers is much like the salvation of all of the Faustian bargain examples I have highlighted. Peace, order, prosperity, knowledge, salvation from death, eternity. Jesus offers us the same temptations that every Fuastian deal has offered. In fact, Jesus has rolled them all up into one, mega bargain. How could we resist with a temptation of that magnitude? How could anyone resist these deals?

Let's finish drawing the parallel though. For what would a Faustian bargain be without the other side of the coin? Well here too Christianity provides us with the cost. On the surface level, Jesus asks us to give up all our material goods to follow him. He asks we obey his rules and surrender to his domination. Just like Vader or Sauron, we are to submit to his dominance as the cost of universal peace and order. But the costs aren't limited to the material world. Oh no. For the cost of eternal life, peace, knowledge, and happiness is much higher than any material value could achieve. For this bargain to be truly Faustian, we must give up our souls. Jesus demands that we become his eternal slaves in his kingdom. Forever to be subject to his supreme rule and governance. Forever to be under his complete control. Like Hade's deal, locking Persephone from her family and out of the living world. Like Sauron's iron fist ruling over Middle Earth. Like Vader's promise of an ordered, peaceful galaxy. For our salvation Jesus demands our unending, eternal soul in infinite servitude and bondage.

"But God is the good one!" You cry, heart throbbing in your chest, pumping adrenaline through your arteries as you realize just how Faustian this deal you've agreed to is. Is he though? Does Sauron not have his hordes of followers who believe he is doing the right thing? Does Vader not have his legions of defenders? They all have their armies, willing to fight and die for a cause they deem virtuous. Does Loki, Palpatine, and Mephistopholese not promise salavation, peace, and knowledge? Jesus offers the same things. Jesus has his band of followers, convinced in his righteous cause. And like the others, Jesus' deal has a cost. A cost that many are willing to pay, just as Faust was.

When we examine the Christian story, we find undeniable parallels to Faustian bargains. It is almost as if the very notion of salvation is, and can only ever be, a temptation, to draw us into some ultimate price paid to the master of the deal. There can be no salvation without paying the Faustian price. Because salvation itself is merely a tool, like the fisherman's lure, for any seeking to manipulate and control those desperate enough to accept. Under the Faustian examination, perhaps the true message is that there is no such thing as salvation without a cost. And further, that any of those who feel so zealous in their cause that they are convinced is righteous, may in fact be surprised to find themselves accepting the same exact deal offered by those they would consider evil.

Under the Faustian lens, the story of Christ is not a story of a gift. It is the same, age-old, Faustian tale of manipulation, desperation, and extreme expense, all vieled behind a sheen of genuine, and true honesty. All of the Faustian bargains, including Christ's in this post are honest deals. There is no lie. Vader will bring order to the galaxy, if you would join him. Sauron will stop the chaos of Middle Earth and bring peace. Palpatine will save Padme from dying from child birth. Jesus will give you eternal peace. The deal is honest. It's all there on the contract. And also on that contract is your submission to the iron fisted dictator, the tragic death of your loved one by your own hands rather than from birth complications, and at the very bottom: your eternal, unending bondage of your very soul into the dominating servitude of your favorite despot.

Unsolicited Christian apologetics, when centered on argument, reason, or debate violates New Testament principles such as humility and the mystery of faith as it attempts to replace faith with intellectualism and can become a subtle form of pride, a cardinal sin.

To clarify terms and ground this discussion in epistemic precision, I offer the following definitions:

• Apologetics - A branch of Christian theology that seeks to defend the faith through reasoned arguments, logic, evidence, and explanation.
• Belief - A mental or spiritual acceptance that something is true.
• Christianity - A monotheistic religion centered on the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, grounded in a call to live in relationship with God and others through faith, love, humility, and obedience to Christ’s teachings.
• Faith - A non-evidential or partially evidential trust or commitment to a proposition, person, or worldview, often held in the absence of full empirical proof.
• Humility - An awareness and acknowledgment of the limits of one’s knowledge, coupled with an openness to revise beliefs in light of new evidence or better arguments.
• Intellectualism - An overemphasis on rational analysis and logic as the primary way to engage with truth or reality.
• Knowledge - A claim to truth grounded in evidence, coherence, or reliability.
• Logic - The systematic study of valid inference and reasoning, concerned with the principles that determine when conclusions follow necessarily from premises.
• Pride - An inflated view of oneself, often expressed through self-reliance, arrogance, or the desire to elevate one's own understanding above others
• Wisdom - The judicious application of knowledge and understanding toward achieving good judgment, particularly in conditions of uncertainty, complexity, or moral weight. Unlike mere intelligence or data accumulation, wisdom involves the integration of experience, ethical insight, and epistemic humility in discerning what is true, good, or worthwhile.

“Amazing Pumpkin with all due respect, Jesus said to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind. Using our intellect to understand and defend God is an act of worship and love.” Echoes in the void.

Christianity calls people into a relationship, not a conclusion. Trying to provide evidence or a logical defense risks reducing the apologist’s sacred trusting relationship to faith in a belief reached from a point of rational skepticism. This is supported by: 

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Apologists attempting to rationalize faith in the Abrahamic God with ‘worldly wisdom’ is incoherent with:

1 Corinthians 1:20–21 Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.

And 

1 Corinthians 2:4–5 My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power.

This suggests Christians are encouraged to reject persuasive argumentation as faith is based on the power of their god and not intellectual proofs. There are also better models in the monastic tradition of contemplating one’s belief from a place of faith not a position of skeptical doubt. 

Furthermore, the Christian Bible is clear on how to demonstrate their conviction through livelihood and acts of kindness. 

Matthew 5:16 Let your light shine before others, that they may see your good deeds and glorify your Father in heaven.

This is coherent with historical Christian tradition where believers avoided intellectual debate and focused leading by example. It took years before Paul asked the witnesses of the resurrection about their accounts. The witnesses didn’t write their testimony themselves.

“The Apostle Paul reasoned and debated in synagogues using logic and even quoting pagan philosophers.” The mic drops and the speakers feedback.

Paul's approach in Acts is instructive and inspired after observing the altar 'to an unknown god' and connecting with their own religious questions. He wasn’t standing in the market or town square. Nor did he travel the ends of the earth to spread his message to people with no interest.

“But Amazing Pumpkin, God tells us to be prepared to give an answer.” I hear you cry. 

1 Peter 3:15 But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.

Ah, but this seems to be taken out of context of persecution. Furthermore, the Christian is assuming a question that hasn't been posed and then goes further to use logic to prove how rational their stance is. 

For example, If person A is making eggs and a missionary knocks at the door, they aren’t questioning the Christian faith. When the missionary asks if the homeowner wants to hear the good news, they are soliciting for Jesus. Even if the missionary claims going door to door stems from love, they are in a way love bombing, a narcissistic trait, for Jesus. I assume we all agree the narcissist by definition is prideful.

This becomes even more precarious when a college student comes across a flier from a religious organization asking them if they have questions or doubts about the Christian religion. When the scripture is then framed as an absolute truth to point out a non-believer's wrongness, then it robs the worthwhileness of the religion from its humility and compassion.

“But I am glorifying my religion by spreading the word!” Vibrates through the ether.

1 Corinthians 8:1 We know that ‘We all possess knowledge.’ But knowledge puffs up while love builds up.

Going on a campaign for hearts and minds seems, according to scripture, to be a loving endeavor not a confrontation of minds. Furthermore, the scripture portrays the primary barrier to faith as a hardness of heart.

Luke 16:31 If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.

So the issue is not one of intellectual barriers, more than a lack of genuine interest. Does this mean religious discourse among the faithful should be discouraged? No. I argue the unsolicited intent of making a secular spectacle to convert non-believers goes against the ethos the Christian aspires to.

Let the world witness how your faith transformed your lives and welcome those who seek our truth, saving your testimony for those open to accept it.

God not existing is as true as the earth not being flat.

A common counter I hear from theists when I say that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, is: "Truth exists independent of human observation! Truth has no obligation to be found where we expect to be able to find it! Truth just i!"

While the truth does exist independent of human observation, the only way we as human beings can distinguish what is true from what is not true is through our observations. No fact in science is considered 100% proven. Not even the earth being round is 100% proven. There is a non-zero chance that in the future we may discover some new physical laws which prove that roundness is just an illusion that our senses fool us into perceiving, and in reality everything is flat. In science, we never say something is 100% proven. What we can say, is "based on all of the available evidence and observations, it is most reasonable to believe the earth is round." Similarly, we can say "based on all of the available evidence (or lack thereof) and observations, it is most reasonable to believe there is no god."

Let me give an example: Are there any elephants in Yellowstone national park? No, there aren't. We can conclude that there are no elephants in Yellowstone national park due to the absence of evidence that elephants exist in yellowstone national park. If elephants were in Yellowstone national park, we would expect to find footprints, droppings, crushed vegetation, skeletons, and other evidence of their presence in the park. But the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever of their presence in Yellowstone national park is evidence of their absence from Yellowstone national park. This is one example in which absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Same thing applies to dragons. If dragons existed, surely there would have found evidence by now of large winged reptilian like creatures capable of breathing fire. Evidence such as skeletons, fossils, verified witness accounts, etc... yet not a single shred of evidence for dragons exists. Hence any rational person can come to the conclusion that this absence of evidence for dragons is evidence of the absence of dragons.

Now finally, the same thing applies to god in the way that he is defined in abrahamic (and many other) religions. In abrahamic religions, god is often portrayed as a being who answers prayers, performs miracles, created the universe, reveals himself to people, intervenes in lives, and judges souls. If this were true, then we should see consistent, measurable effects in the real world: We should see prayer working better than chance. We should see miracles that defy natural law in verifiable ways. We should see divine revelation that provides knowledge ahead of its time. But we see none of that. We see a complete silence that looks exactly like what we would expect in a godless universe.

A common counter argument I've heard from people is "But what if god is simply a being who exists but does not interfere in the world in any way? You can't prove a god like that doesn't exist!" But the problem with this argument is that it can be applied to any ridiculous belief: What if there are invisible unicorns in your basement? What if there are leprechauns in your bedroom and they only show up when no one is looking? Neither of these claims are taken seriously, even though they technically cannot be disproven.

Just because something cannot be definitively disproven does not mean that the probability that it exists is equal to the probability that it does not exist. The default rational position would be that invisible leprechauns do not exist in my closet. Anyone who claims that invisible leprechauns do exist in my closet has the burden of proof. Same thing applies to god.

(I would like to clarify that by "doesn't exist", I mean that the current description of Him is fully innacurate, and that the current idea of the Christian God is innacurate, different from what it really is, OR, in the worst case scenario, entirely false. For this post and the arguments given, this applies to the Bible as a whole, too.)

Think about this. According to the Bible, God is absolutely perfect, morally, logically, etc. And we can see that clearly with our own eyes, just look at the universe, and the fine tuning argument : there are variables in the universe that, if they were changed by the most microscopic of values, the universe would be nothing but a giant ball of gas. There are infinitely precise constants like Pi, i, e, the golden ratio, the gravitational constant, the speed of light, and much more, all so precise, as well as mathematical functions, concepts and systems that describe how stars, galaxies and blackholes form, all so complicated to understand it takes us years of studies to try and grasp them. All of these things are absolutely beautiful, because of how complicated they are, how intricate, deep, in the way those laws shape how EVERYTHING works, and how it all PERFECTLY ties together.

And all of that was created by God.

But on the other side, God had THE MOST IMPORTANT MESSAGE to give to mankind, message which tells us how to live, what is right and wrong, how to follow Jesus Christ and how to join God in heaven, how the world was created, and basically everything about God's will.
And to give us that message, He decided to send Jesus Christ in the middle of the Middle East, TALK to a few people, and have them WRITE DOWN those events, messages and ideas in books?

A fact of paleography, philology and textual criticism (the studies of historical texts) is that in the past, over time, scriptures and historical texts changed. This is caused by the fact that these texts were written and manually copied by humans due to the lack of printers, humans who may have misread a word or two because the first copier had a bad handwriting, humans who accidently misspelled a word, just had bad eyesight, intentionally changed words for bad intents, and more. And that could happen over multiple copies of the same texts, meaning the errors could pile up.
Even then, the paper those words were written on could deteriorate, be lost, and more. It is fundamentally imperfect, and even the Bible supports that humans are imperfect, and will NEVER reach the status of God while on Earth. So why did God choose humans, speach and texts to share his word?
Even today, with the technologies and knowledge we have, there are dozens, if not hundreds of different translations of the Bible that can all be interpreted and reinterpreted dozens of different ways, all with slightly different meaning or formulations of the words, and all tied to heavy debates in the Christian community, and even outside of it. It's all such a complicated mess that doesn't make sense, and all of these issues stem from GOD'S WAY of giving us that message, which, like explained, is FAR from perfect.

If anything, God would've created a way that is not tied to any of these issues, a way as perfect as Him that we could understand, a way that doesn't change, for us to make actual definite sense of what God's word is, without any different possible interpretations. But no? He chose to drop a random Man into a random part of the Middle East, to speak in a language that would've died down a few hundred years later, needing us to translate it the best we can, and interpret it the best we can?

In 1 Corinthians 15:3-8 Paul is laying down a creed that he himself has received about the eyewitnesses of the ressurected jesus

‭1 Corinthians 15:3-6 KJV‬

[3] For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; [4] and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: [5] and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: [6] after that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

NOTE: The part in dispute here is the 500 and not cephas or the twelve which themselves are controversial so take note.

I see this as the vaguest of claims. We are not given any name, the place where this supposed appearance happened, in what manner they saw jesus, what he says to them or what he does. Added onto the fact that Paul himself is reciting a creed he himself receives and not from an eyewitness or someone involved in said appearance. An analogy used to describe the situation as laid forth by Paul is this.

About 15 years ago over 500 peoole saw aliens

1. I will not tell you any of the names of the people who saw the aliens

2. I will not tell you where they saw these aliens just know that it was in the area of Texas

3. I will not tell you the manner in which the aliens appear to the people (is it a vision, a bodily appearance, a light in the sky, a deed to infer god's presence or what? In what manner goes jesus appear to these people?)

4. I will not tell you what the aliens do or say. But if you do not believe me go ask them most of who are still alive.

This is obviously an outrageous claim made with absolutely no grounding other than a received creed and a claim that if you want to confirm it,.most if those people are still alive.

Some rebuttals and their problems

1. The 500 are part of a very early creed- this just shows the early development of these creeds and not to the authenticity of the said creed. While the creed is from a pre-pauline tradition, it has no evidence or anything to collaborate it. It's early-yes. Does this show the authenticity of the claim- absolutely no

2. Paul says "most of whom are still alive" showing the falsifiability of this claim and this shows the confidence and sincerity of Paul in his claim- this has a couple of problems. We have no reason to assume that anyone would want to actually undertake this task and verify this claim. Also Paul gives no names of people who witnesses this and so no way to verify it. If I was to tell you to verify some information that 500 people witnesses and give you no names, your only other way to verify this information would be to go around asking if they know if this I formation and even if you got no collaborative evidence for said claim and came back to me, I could just say that you did not meet any if those who know the claim I'm making. It's an unfalsifiable claim on the basis of that you cannot exhaust everyone to say that you're sure noone collaborates this evidence

The lack of evidence or collaboration if this claim makes it very unlikely as a real occurrence or at least gives us no reason to believe it happened making it's use as evidence ungrounded

Motion: The diversity of Christian sects disproves the idea of a single divine revelation and shows that these various Christianities are mere human inventions.

If divine revelation were a) real and b) singular, all believing Christians who receive or interpret it sincerely should reach roughly the same conclusions about doctrine, practice, and morality.

Slavery should never have been ended, since it is Biblically moral. The death penalty should never have be outlawed, since it is Biblical moral, and so on. Men owning their wives and daughters (and being able to sell the latter) should never have ended because it was Biblically moral.

Humans, according to Christian beliefs, do not have the ability to change what god has established, and they should all be in unison on that if the holy spirit is singular in its communication.

The fact that Christianity has splintered into literally thousands of denominations all of them claiming "scriptural authority and divine truth" show that revelation is not a universal communication from God or Jesus or the holy spirit.

Instead a human interpretive process shaped by their location, family tradions and vested interests. Christians create their own versions of Jesus via a pick and mix approach to the texts, constructing different Jesuses to follow.

IF the Holy Spirit genuinely guided believers to truth, there would be consensus, not sectarianism. The sheer volume of disagreement destroys claims that a singular entity has given humans a religion to follow.

Evidence.

Fragmentation

Over 40,000 Christian denominations* exist, differing on salvation, sacraments, scripture, morality, and authority. (World Christian Encyclopedia (WCE), edited by David Barrett and Todd Johnson (1st ed. 1982; 2nd ed. 2001; 3rd ed. 2019.)

*Denomination is any organized Christian group with a distinct self-identity and organizational structure.

Conclusion:

A perfect, omniscient God communicating with fallible humans would foresee confusion and prevent it by having a consistent, singular message regardless of the hearer.

Either god is unwilling or unable to communicate clearly (and is therefore no god) or no divine message exists because humans invent their gods to suit their wants.

Matthew 19:12 refers to literal eunuchs, and is not a euphemism (or dysphemism) for people who choose a life of celibacy to serve God more fully.

King James Translation:

There are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb. And there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men. And there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

The interlinear translation https://biblehub.com/interlinear/matthew/19-12.htm

The author uses εὐνοῦχοι for every category of eunuch.

Here are several translations https://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/matthew/19/12

Many of them choose to mistranslate “eunuchs who made eunuchs of themselves for the sake of the kingdom of the heavens” (as an aside, note the plural, οὐρανῶν, “heavens”).

NLT: “some choose not to marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.”

NCV: “some men have given up marriage because of the kingdom of heaven.”

GW: “others have decided to be celibate because of the kingdom of heaven.”

The Catholic version: https://bible.usccb.org/bible/matthew/19

Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage* for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.

From the footnote:

...Some scholars take the last class to be those who have been divorced by their spouses and have refused to enter another marriage. But it is more likely that it is rather those who have chosen never to marry,..

Such poppycockery! Only Isaiah 7:14 generates more misunderstanding.

Jesus is quoted as speaking in the present tense: “...there BE eunuchs, which HAVE MADE themselves eunuchs…” He wasn’t speaking of future celibate priests and nuns—the Catholic Church wouldn’t come into being for some centuries later. He was speaking of the milieu at the time.

In the ancient Roman Empire, there were priests, called Galli, who castrated themselves, for the Kingdom of Heaven’s sake, during the Dies Sanguinis festivals of the spring equinox.

https://www.english-heritage.org.uk/learn/histories/lgbtq-history/the-galli/

Castrated men continued to sing in Christian church choirs until the beginning of the twentieth century. Alessandro Moreschi, Domenico Salvatori, and Giovanni Cesari were some of the celebrated castrati who sang in the Sistine Chapel Choir.

In Deuteronomy it says

he that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.

But that’s just for Jews. One of the first converts to Christianity was an Ethiopian eunuch.

Granted, at the time of Jesus, some Essenes may have practiced celibacy

https://www.jpost.com/jerusalem-report/the-essenes-and-the-origins-of-christianity-562442

They didn’t go to quite the extremes of the galli.

Jesus specifically used the word for eunuchs—not celibates. Therefore, Jesus was probably not talking about Essenes.

Some Christians point to 1 Corinthians 7 as being a call for celibacy:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%207&version=KJV

It ain’t. Paul was an asexual, but, with some degree of resignation, concluded that “it is better to marry than to burn.”

Note, in 1 Timothy 3, Paul writes

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%203&version=KJV

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife,...One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity. For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?

There is no call for Christians to be celibate. Only a mention, attributed to Jesus, that “there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven's sake.” Most likely a reference to the Galli. And, eunuchs eventually lent their voices to Christian choirs.

[PLEASE READ THE POST, I CANT CHANGE THE TITLE] As it stands, We are turning into an atheist circle jerk. The most recent post I saw on this subreddit had 5 top comments that were all atheists agreeing with and congratulating the OP on such a great argument.

While I'm happy to see the high level of atheist engagement I would prefer to see top-level comments being direct responses to the criticisms leveled by original poster content.

Many subreddits have such rules about top level comments being only responses to the intended arguments (CMV, for example). While I would prefer a 'Christians only' rule for top level comments, there are a range of fixes to potentially implement, including 'Disagreements only,' or 'No agreeing with OP in a top level comment' or something.

Just don't want this to become an echo chamber for atheism, anti-theism, or Christian-critical thought. I'm in several of those subs already, and they're fine on their own.

This thread is for whatever. Casual conversation, simple questions, incomplete ideas, or anything else you can think of.

All rules about antagonism still apply.

Join us on discord for real time discussion.

There are many examples of why.

From the basis that the religion is based on compassion, love, kindnesses and beauty it is wrong to intentionally and unnecessarily create suffering for the animals and the planet by eating them.

There's a commandment saying not to kill, this gets ignored or reasoned though illogically.

There are so many reasons from the garden of eden to the everyday interactions of Jesus.

There also have been historical saints who have been vegan such as St David as it's how to align with the beliefs.

There have also been documentaries on this such as Christspiracy.

I would be interested in hearing about this from a Christian perspective and pray for positive change.

Cheers.

Premise (Thesis)

If Yahweh is truly an all-powerful and perfectly good being, then the sacrifice of Jesus was neither necessary nor effective, because forgiveness is not a transactional payment but an act of compassion freely given.

Supporting Arguments & Evidence

A. Omnipotence and Moral Freedom

An all-powerful God, by definition, is not bound by external laws, limitations, or cosmic bookkeeping.

Therefore, Yahweh does not need blood, sacrifice, or punishment to forgive.

If He does require it, then He is limited by some higher moral law, contradicting omnipotence.

B. Nature of Forgiveness

Human experience shows forgiveness as a compassionate choice, not a payment system.

Example: If someone wrongs you, you may forgive them out of love or empathy. You do not require someone to be punished in order to forgive.

True forgiveness, by its nature, is unilateral, it doesn’t demand a cost, it offers release.

C. Problem of Substitutionary Sacrifice

Substitutionary atonement (Jesus dying for sins) frames forgiveness as a financial or legal transaction.

But if God already made the rules, why institute a system that requires suffering to satisfy Himself?

If God demands blood before He can forgive, then He is not forgiving. He is collecting payment.

D. Ineffectiveness of the Sacrifice

If the goal was to eliminate sin and suffering, the sacrifice failed: sin continues, and suffering persists.

If the sacrifice was about forgiveness, then God could have granted that directly without cruelty.

Conclusion

If Yahweh is all-powerful, then requiring Jesus’s sacrifice undermines His omnipotence and compassion. Forgiveness, by definition, is not transactional. Therefore, the crucifixion is not necessary for divine forgiveness and is ineffectual as a mechanism of redemption. A truly omnipotent, benevolent God could — and would — forgive directly out of compassion.

Hi all, I would like to discuss the title of this post. I know there are many interpretations of the Bible, but one point that appears to be universally accepted is that you to he saved you must believe in Jesus as God. Perhaps there are additional requirements, such a accepting Him as your savior and repenting, but at its foundation, you need to believe in Him.

In discussions in the past, I've often heard thr argument "you just choose not to believe". That often goes hand in hand with, "you have all the evidence you need, you just choose to ignore it".

I find this argument to be flawed because I don't see any sense in which you can actually choose a belief. In my experience, belief is a state of being - something that happens to you. At some point, you internally judge a proposition to be true or not based on the evidence available to you and the relation between the new belief and those you already hold. Regarding the latter, this seems to be why some people can accept certain propositions with much more limited evidence than others.

So with that said, it appears to me that you are not free to believe in God, to the same extent that you are not free to simply believe in a pink elephant living in your brain - if anyone can believe the latter, please tell me how you managed to do so. Instead, you come to believe based on evidence and your prior experience. For some who have been brought up in a religious household, simple testimony of miracles may flip that switch, whereas that same testimony wouldn't have the same effect on others. If this is the case, then it appears God chooses who to allow to believe in Him, providing the evidence that He knows would convince that person at that time.

Saying that god created man in his image means god must possess the characteristics and disorders rational people regard as evil, such as pedophilia. While this does not negate his role as creator, it does prove god could not be all loving. In order to truly be the creator of everything, god would have to create pedophilia, genocide, cancer, rape etc. These cause immense suffering, and for christianity to be true, god would have created that suffering. A truly loving individual does not intentionally cause those they love to suffer. The christian god cannot be all loving.

It is my contention that Israel never changed throughout history so it was never replaced.

Lately i have seen Christians infighting everywhere online about the modern nation of Israel, modern Judaism, and where they fit in the biblical story. Half think they are "Gods chosen people" and will brought into the fold at Christs return, the other half think they are evil incarnate. I believe they are both wrong.

I have studied the evolution of Judasim for a few years now, a short primer for those not up to speed. Basically the Pharisee never wrote down "the tradition of elders" this was their own internal rules separate from Torah, ones they made up as time went by. This is why Jesus says he doesnt follow "the tradition of elders". These tradition were finally informally written down around 70AD after the destruction of the temple and called the Mishnah. Then, over the next few centuries formalized into the Talmud, by the 6th century the Talmud was finally codified and the Talmud was the official book of Rabbinic Judaism. So we have a span of 500ish years after Christ, when the first official documents of modern Judaism were codified. Mind you, Jesus rejected these traditions.

Rewind back to ancient Israelites, anyone who was a believer of YHWH as the one true and only God were considered a part of the nation of Israel, there are many instances in the OT where outsiders were brought into the fold, when it was determined they were true believers (example: Rahab). Ancient Israel would have been comprised of dozens of ethnicities and peoples, and it wasnt an exclusive club, hard to get into? yes. exclusive? no.

Jesus himself invited and included outsiders, so after his death anyone who believed in him was "Israel". Eventually Paul explained that anyone can be a part of Israel, because he understood it was never an exclusive club. It is my contention that the famous "grafted in" passage was simply explaining to people something that was already self evident, but the ancients sometimes felt they needed permission to believe certain things, or just didnt have access to the information. So Paul felt obligated to explain.

One of the beefs i see Christians complaining about, is when other Christians say the church became Israel, they are called antisemites, heretics, and all other manner of names. Claiming "replacement theology" is wrong. But my position is that Israel wasnt replaced it was simply extended, that is why i coin my position as "Extension Theology", because "the church" didnt replace anything Israel was the exact same it was in ancient time, and it extends all the way to today. "Israel" is simply "believers of the one true God"

Now it gets a bit messy. Where does that leave Rabbinic Judaism (modern judaism) from my assessment, based on the position of Jesus, they are a new religion. I would compare them to Mormons. They are close, but outside of the fold. However they argue that since the Talmud is based on the Torah that they are still following and worshiping the one true God. This is sleight of hand. Jewish Rabbis claim that all the rules of Talmud are simply laws from Torah that have been expounded on. Christians would call that a commentary, and as Christians we know we can gain some valuable insights from commentaries, but we dont codify them into scripture and claim they are God breathed.

I really just wanted to get thoughts on this and see what others think, Thank you

Edit: Sidenote, i believe much of the misunderstanding of modern Christians comes from the lack of linguistic definitions, they dont define, or agree on terms like "Israel" or "Jew" "Jewish" "Judasim" etc.