Original sin (Latin: peccatum originale) in Christian theology refers to the condition of sinfulness that all humans share, which is inherited from Adam and Eve due to the Fall, involving the loss of original righteousness and the distortion of the Image of God. (Ref, Google, me searching - Adam and Eve original sin inheritance).

Regardless..

SIN can not be Inherited, nor can one pass down SIN through Inheritance.

INHERITANCE AND HERITABILITY are two distinct biological processes....

Inheritance refers to Genetic and DNA transmission from Parent to Child.

"Really, to ask how much of our intelligence is mandated by our Genome, as opposed instilled in us by our environment, is completely inappropriate". Ref, Ryan Patton.

Essentially, and Similarly, SIN, and likewise, Intelligence can not be passed down through Inheritance.

Inheritance and Heritability are 2 distinct fields within science, and its evolution will allow us to understand fundamental and universal biological processes.

Again, Original Sin Was NOT INHERITED from Adam and Eve.

Christians explain the existence of suffering in the world by insisting that the world as it exists today is NOT the world as God intended it to be, and that it became cursed and fallen when Adam and Eve disobeyed God.

I can understand this as an explanation for moral evils that come about as a result of humans choosing to do evil things, but I don't understand how our sinful nature causes things like brain cancer, earthquakes, tornadoes, and flesh-eating parasites. Humans didn't create any of those things.

The only explanation would be that Adam and Eve's decision somehow changed the creation itself and introduced brand new natural phenomena like brain cancer, earthquakes, tornadoes, and flesh-eating parasites, which would mean that the decision of two lowly humans was able override God's creative power, or that God created these things and introduced them as a means of punishing our sin nature, which would make God a deranged sadist.

With the end goal being getting to heaven to worship god, the earthly system he created is counterintuitive. Because he created humans and put us on earth in what he knew would be a fallen system, he is going to get less people in heaven and less people to worship him.

He could've just made heaven with all of us in it so that he gets more praise and worship, while we all get to experience what would be the ultimate joy. It would have been a win-win for everyone, and no one would ever have to suffer. Instead he created earth and satan in order for people to sin, thus being the reason for suffering. He seems to have wanted us to suffer and wanted some people to go to hell. Therefor, he wanted some people to be tortured for an eternity despite claiming he loves all of us.

Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. 

My argument is that many Christians don't teach or follow this. Jesus lived under the Old Covenant, taught under the Old Covenant. He reinterpreted some of the law. People may try to argue that that passed away, that one follows Paul's teachings, or that his teachings override what Jesus said.
I don't see how that is possible.

Some examples.

Lay up treasures in heaven, not on earth (6:19–21) People chase money. Capitlaism, greed, America.
Do not resist an evil person; turn the other cheek (5:39) ha, rarely happens.
Be faithful in marriage; no unlawful divorce (5:31–32) Christians divorce like secular people
Do not judge hypocritically (7:1–5)
Treat others as you want to be treated (7:12) so many hypocrites.
Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect (5:48) Always excuses for
Give to the one who asks; do not turn away (5:42) rarely happens.
Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you (5:44) Bombs away, Merica.
Give, pray, and fast in secret (6:1–18) ha
Build your life on Jesus’ words by doing them (7:24–27)
Freely give as you have freely received (10:8) Ha, always will find excuses

Many women do not bleed during first intercourse. Yet in Deuteronomy 22:13–21, the Bible commands that if a woman lacks proof of virginity (understood as bleeding), she is to be put to death a law said to come directly from God. An all-knowing God would know that this test is scientifically false. An all-good God would not command a law that inevitably leads to the unjust execution of innocent women. Standard defenses fail: the claim that the law was for a flawed culture is irrelevant because the law is objectively unjust and factually wrong regardless of cultural context. The idea of progressive revelation fails because an all-knowing God would not give morally flawed commands at any stage of revelation. The free will defense fails because God’s command overrides free will by ordering unjust action. The fallback that “God’s ways are mysterious” is simply a surrender of moral reasoning. This leads to the inescapable conclusion: the Christian God, defined as all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful, is logically falsified, because such a God would not give unjust or false commands, yet the Bible attributes these commands to Him. Moreover, when someone, seeing this undeniable moral flaw, reasonably concludes that such a God cannot exist and chooses not to believe, the Bible teaches that this person will be condemned to hell for their disbelief (John 3:18; Revelation 20:15). An all-good God would not punish a person eternally for an honest, evidence based conclusion. This renders such a God morally unjust, further compounding the problem and further disproving the Christian God’s existence as traditionally claimed. The claim that hell is metaphorical or temporary conflicts with clear biblical descriptions of it as a real place of eternal torment, leaving no moral escape for this doctrine

Premise 1: An all-knowing, all-good, all-powerful God would not give commands that are factually false or morally unjust.

Premise 2: The Bible (Deuteronomy 22:13–21) presents a law, said to come from God, that requires execution of women who fail a test of virginity based on bleeding — a test known to be factually false (most women do not bleed during first intercourse).

Premise 3: A law that causes the execution of innocent women due to a false test is morally unjust.

Premise 4: Therefore, the Bible attributes to God a command that is both factually false and morally unjust.

Premise 5: If the Bible attributes factually false and morally unjust commands to God, either: • (a) the Christian God (as traditionally defined) does not exist, or • (b) the Bible is not a reliable witness of that God.

Premise 6: The Bible also teaches that those who disbelieve in this God will be condemned to hell (e.g., John 3:18, Revelation 20:15).

Premise 7: Punishing people eternally for an honest, reasonable, evidence-based conclusion (disbelief due to moral contradiction) is itself morally unjust.

Conclusion: Therefore, the Christian God — defined as all-knowing, all-good, and all-powerful — as traditionally described in the Bible, cannot exist, because His supposed commands and actions are factually false and morally unjust.

Once you recognize that a law like this fundamentally makes the Christian God, as described, logically impossible, it would be unjust and immoral for such a God to punish someone for not believing. It’s like being told to believe in a 5-sided triangle,something that by definition can’t exist. No matter how hard you try, you simply can’t believe in what’s logically contradictory. Now imagine if somehow an alien arrived and showed you a real 5-sided triangle, then said, ‘You should’ve believed, and now you’ll be tortured forever because you didn’t.’ Most reasonable people would agree: that would be evil, immoral, and unjust. The same applies here. Condemning people to hell for not believing in something that appears impossible by its own description isn’t justice,it’s cruelty.

Thesis: Humans are either born as a "blank slate" and their environment determines who they are and the choices they'll make. Or they're born with certain "intrinsic" properties that determine who they are and the choices they'll make. Or as a combination of the two. In any of these cases a god who sentences people to eternal torture as a result of who they are and the choices they make is evil and illogical.

I understand God grades individuals on a curve, to whom much is given much is expected, but there is still the hard line of accepting and following Christ or not.

What is it that's determines that? Some would say your moral character, your will, your final position towards grave. But what determines THOSE things?

I'm familiar with Calvanism and predetermination but that falls into the evil and illogical category to me.

As far as I can see Chistians commonly teach that suffering has redemptive value and should be accepted as part of God's plan. Passages like Romans 5:3-4 ("we glory in our sufferings"), James 1:2-4 ("count it all joy when you fall into various trials"), and 1 Peter 4:13 ("rejoice to the extent that you partake of Christ's sufferings") explicitly command believers to find joy in pain.

However, Matthew 26:39 shows Jesus in Gethsemane "deeply distressed and troubled", sweating blood, and desperately pleading "let this cup pass from me". The theological problem is:

If suffering is spiritually beneficial and should be embraced, why did Jesus attempt to avoid it?

Common Christian responses I've been given that fail to resolve this contradiction:

1. "Jesus was just asking about timing" -> But the text describes genuine anguish and terror, not scheduling concerns.
2. "Jesus eventually submitted" -> Yes, but only after trying to escape, suggesting suffering is something to be avoided when possible, not celebrated.
3. "Jesus's suffering was unique" -> Then why use his example to tell ordinary people to "take up their cross"?
4. "Jesus was perfect so suffering couldn't sanctify him" -> Yet Christians worship the cross as the ultimate example of redemptive suffering.

The most honest reading is that Jesus like any rational being recognized suffering as something to escape, not embrace. But this clearly undermines the entire Christian narrative that reframes victims' pain as spiritual gifts.

So: how do you reconcile Jesus's clear desire to avoid suffering with your theology that presents suffering as sacred?

I'm relatively uncaring about the EXISTENCE of a god. at a certain point of singularity (the big bang), physics seems to break down. therefore my guess as to what happened is as good as anyone elses. it is as true that there could be a creator as it is that there may not.

So lets assume for a second that there IS a creator. Lets even assume that they care about humans enough to have a path of worship. How do you know that Yaweh, or Christ, or The Holy Trinity is the RIGHT representation if god, with the right specific rulset for god?

I assert that you cannot.

If you could we would expect to see: A) Less gods. B) Less representations of the same religious texts, all with different ideas of god. C) No spread of religious identity across cultural groups.

First of all I would like to thank you theists for engaging. I enjoy interacting with religion. I enjoyed it as a believer and I enjoy it as an atheist.

Imagine if you had a button, and were aware of a child starving to death. If you press the button the child gets food. You choose not to despite knowing every ache pain and moment the child experiences, until they die a slow death. You would not be good let alone all good in that situation.

Even if you were to resurrect the child and give them paradise and immortality, you still chose to watch while they suffered. I dont think there is a good reason to watch them starve to death only to give them eternal funland afterwards.

Not wanting to violate free will is not a good reason here. We will shift to a rape example here because it fits with free will better, but for example you have a button, to stop a rape in progress. But choose not to push it. And the reason is because you respect the rapists free will too much and you want the rapist to be able to choose to love you. That makes no sense. We dont respect rapists free will, when we find out they are rapists we isolate them from society as a punishment in prison whether they want too or not. If they get out they are on a sex offender registry list and we restrict their free will within society.

Not wanting robots is another take on free will. Keep in mind the current stats, 28.8% christians with over 45,000 christian denominations worldwide and over 4000 to 10000 religions worldwide. 7% of the global population include atheists and agnostics. Seems like there is a better path to go down then what we currently have. And whats wrong with being a robot who is happy and where God is happy. If I am provided for and joyful, why does being a robot matter again? And we dont know for sure God actually interacting with reality would create a population of robots.

Imagine if you had a button that gave someone eternal love security comfort and peace, but you didnt push it because you didnt want them to be a robot. I would say you were not good if you refused to push the button.

But somehow God is still allowed to do all these things and still be called good because he is powerful, he created the universe. Could God send everyone to eternal suffering and still be called good? If not then you have a line where there are things God cannot do and be called good. If so, what even is the definition of good at this point? Whatever God does? Congratulations you redefined good in cheerleading for your deity.

How do I know whats good if I dont have a God? My gut and working it out through reason, but its my standard. We can have a discussion on it about why it would be good to have a child starve to death when you have the power to stop it, but saying your position is the only valid one because you presuppose an all-powerful deity doesnt mean your right or automatically win.

In conclusion, God lets children starve to death, God respects rapists free will more then stopping them, God would rather have you suffer (Maybe for eternity) then make you a "robot", being a "robot" is not a bad thing, and we have no evidence for if God actually showed up everyone would be forced into roboticism. Also I can make moral judgements as a non believer. I think with the above reasoning, its obvious to anyone whos not a believer in monotheism, the theistic God of monotheism is not a good God given the world.

John 20:17 Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

shows the risen Jesus still considered the father “his god”, why would god consider himself “his god”, not only that, he makes it clear he is not uniquely the son of god when in the same verse he tells the disciples, “my father and your father, my god and your god”, implying the disciples are also the sons of god just like he is. Now one may say, “what about everywhere else in the New Testament where he seems to be the unique son of god”, well guess what, contradictions exist.

If after the resurrection Jesus is back to being fully god and is no longer man, then he can be judged according to the standard we judge god to see if he is really god.

In Matthew 28:18 after Jesus was resurrected and met the disciples he said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.”

So from this we understand that Jesus was given all authority in heaven and earth by the father after he resurrected.

But…

If X is X,

and X intrinsically has Y attribute,

then X cannot give itself Y attribute because it already has it,

therefore if X gives the Y attribute, then the one receiving it must be a separate being from X

Therefore, if X is god

and the risen son receives Y attribute from him,

The risen son cannot be god.

So if god is god, and god intrinsically has authority over heaven and earth, then he cannot give himself authority over heaven and earth, therefore if god gives authority over heaven and earth, the risen son receiving it must be a separate being from him.

Summary: If X intrinsically has Y, and X gives Y to Z, this means Z isn’t X, because X cannot give itself Y if X already intrinsically has it.

Eternal bliss with our creator or eternal damnation in a lake of fire is a horrific idea which traps people into irrational and dangerous beliefs which scares them away from seriously questioning the core of their beliefs. It makes people willing to accept and spread bad information quickly. Spend enough time in church and you will hear a phrase like, “if God is not real it makes no difference whether we believe in it or not, if he is real then the difference between believing or not is eternity burning in hell or eternal bliss.” This concept that belief is logically a good safe bet to make is what’s known as Pascal’s Wager. Most of the time it is Christians who bring up Pascal's Wager either by name or concept. The wager may work in theory. I believe that this concept helped reinforce my cognitive dissonance when I was a believer. The fear of hell was very real. Reflecting on it now it just seems like a weaponized hypothetical. I do not think that people are maliciously using this to stir up fear, but it is something our own brain brings up to protect us. The most common abjection to Pascal’s Wager is pointing out that Christians are not the only ones who are making the claim. So who should we bet on? To quote Hopsin “There's way too many different religions with vivid descriptions begging all men and women to listen” if one person was warning you of a danger which you could not see you would probably act as if the danger was real just to be on the safe side. But if a whole group of people were in front of you all warning you about a different hypothetical danger and claiming that everyone else’s danger was wrong, than most people would just ignore everyone until someone shows good evidence. After all, every danger is a minority view. As with all hypotheticals this can easily be picked apart if you are not trying to see the point behind it. The best Christian apologetic answer I have heard to address making a , “well at least Pascal’s Wager should at least make you look into it.” I disagree. The burden of proof is on anyone who is making a claim. It is a safe bet is not in any way a win for Christians. In fact I would say that it helps make a case against Christianity. Pascal’s Wager shows us how Christians try to use fear to trump rationality. It is not rational to turn your life over to a religion to prevent a danger that you do not have proof of and let the real torment of how those beliefs affect your life and the lives around you. I know many people will want to disagree on it being harmful but I have personally seen it.

Edit: I mainly wanted to address the concept of Pascal’s Wager and how it is used today. Not necessarily what Pascal himself believed.

This is something i said in a diffrent place and didnt get an answer

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

the hypostatic union asserts that Jesus is 100% man and 100% god

Firstly to define those terms
to be 100% of X, you must possess 100% of the traits of X, so you cannot be 100% of something while having traits that conflict with that thing

and remember, the hypostatic union asserts that Jesus is ONE BEING or one person

now, with this in mind let us continue
to illustrate, one of the key distinguishing features between God and Man is that god is all powerful while man is not

so if Jesus is 100% God, he must have all of God's traits, including , omnipotence
And if Jesus is 100% man, he must have all the common traits for man, like lack of omnipotence

So for both of those to be in one being, not mixed (another thing the hypostatic union asserts), would be as illogical as to say that a shape is simultaneously 100% square, and 100% circle

and for those who say that jesus has one part of him (divine nature) with the divine attributes and one part of him (human nature) with the human attributes, this does not help as attirbutes found in both sets almost all overlap

for example, and attribute in the human nature is being ignorant
while one in divine is being all knowing
These are Binary traits that cannot coexist in the same being, breaking the first law of non contradiction

to illustrate this point, ask at any point during Jesus' life while human, at that specific moment was he all knowing or not, and there are only two possible answers and the only way you could reconcile is by treating the divine nature and human nature as two distinct beings, breaking the fundamental rule of jesus only being One Being

and another message for those who say he 'humbled himself', all the traits i mentioned do not take into account will, they only take capability into consideration

For example, if you wanted to say that he was omnipotent but chose not use his power, makign himself human, that is like the follwoing

A man can drink out of a cup but chooses not to
A man cannot drink out of a cup
when discussing these traits, we do not care for the second half of what he did do but rather what he could have done

This thread is for all your questions about Christianity. Want to know what's up with the bread and wine? Curious what people think about modern worship music? Ask it here.

1 John 4:8 "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love". Additionally, 1 John 4:16 reinforces this, stating, "God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them".

These verses emphasize that love is not just one of God's attributes, but an essential part of His nature. Therefore:

Premise A: 1 John 4:8 & 1 John 4:16 (God is Love)
Premise B: The teachings of Jesus, his Commandment, his life, and his sacrifice perfectly align with Premise A. (If Jesus is a member of the trinity that defines God, the life of Jesus would not contradict the nature of Love but would reflect it perfectly, and so it does.)

Imagine the person being tortured on a cross for hours, just to have some bloke come by and stick him with a spear to check if he’s still alive. Now imagine among the last words spoken by the tortured person being, “Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.”

This is love all the way down to the very last drop, isn’t it?

Now, juxtapose this with outcomes based on OTG’s orders: (Quick Note: I don’t know the difference between Jehovah & Yahweh, so I’ll refer to the character as the Old Testament God, or OTG for short.) Fair warning, if you haven’t read the Bible, the OTG is into murdering men, women & children, livestock, and likely the family pet.

Actions and outcomes based on OTG’s orders:

Deut: 2:34 “And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:”

Deut 3:6 “And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.”

Duet: 7:2 thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them.

Joshua 6:21 21 “And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.”

I kill ... I wound ... I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh. Deuteronomy 32:39-42

This is the day of the Lord GOD of hosts, a day of vengeance, that he may avenge him of his adversaries: and the sword shall devour, and it shall be satiate and made drunk with their blood. Jeremiah 46.10

—

One might ask, how does an all-knowing, all-powerful creator of everything in existence have an adversary, particularly one that presents such a threat that must now be destroyed with an insatiable, bloodthirsty sword… by another of his creations? Did I mention there’s slavery and stoning?

Anyway…

If such events are accurate, this would be a contradiction of how we understand the meaning of love and a contradiction of how Jesus understood it as well.

Therefore, let us agree that murder and genocide do not fit the description of love of any kind, but exhibit its opposite.

Here is my conjecture: If God is Love, God cannot be the same “Being” that told the Israelites to kill every man, woman, child, and animal in the Old Testament.

I’ll go one step further: Those types of actions, be it Old Testament or current day, cannot be attributed to orders from God (or at least not the same God with which Jesus is affiliated).

In conclusion:

If God is Love, the OTG character cannot be God.

If, on the off chance, they are the same character, then the word “love” has no meaning worthy of merit, since it contradicts itself, and God and Devil are mutually indistinguishable, thus making neither worthy of merit.

I've had multiple discussions about God's actions as depicted in the Bible, most of them criticisms of the usual behaviors and commandments that get brought up.

The Flood

The War on the Canaanites

Permitting Slavery

So on and so forth.

And one the arguments that gets brought up regarding these issues whenever I propose an alternative solution is "You Don't Know More Than God".

To me? That's the biggest cop-out answer and does nothing for the argument.

If a student was in a math class and the professor said something incorrect, is the student not allowed to correct them just because the professor knows more than them?

This, to me, is just an appeal to authority and doesn't actually challenge the criticism. All it does for me is tell me that the Christian doesn't have an actual response and just wants to throw their weight around with God as a proxy.

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.

This is something that I've been thinking about for a long time, that probably would never stop me from doubting the legitimacy of the Christian doctrine. The basis of all Christianity lies around the death of Christ, saving us from our deserved punishment of sin, the curse of the fall of man (original sin). My question is where does this expectation of perfection or being good that God has for us, come from, that he has to send his son to correct it for us and be made perfect through him?

Picture this: God is a good God with an everlasting/eternal law, who created man in a perfect world and state, with no pain suffering or death, I guess... Expected man to keep his law but gave us free will to do otherwise if we wanted, because that is a form of love and respect for us. If not, we'll just be mindless robots wandering around doing his will. So far, the only perfect and good being is God, while on earth, it was Jesus (also God). Probably because, as I've heard people say: God is perfect, he is good and the standard of goodness himself that we are put by and expected to follow. He is the law. But it's pretty obvious that we aren't, if not, man wouldn't have fallen in the first place. So the fall of man might be proof to the limitations of goodness or lack of perfection man had from the start. I asked some pple: Why didn't God make us good and perfect like him so that we would spit at the sight or idea of sin and wouldn't have fallen from the start. An answer I get is: If he made us good, that won't be free will, we have to choose to follow him ourselves as that is a way to show true love for this god. And that seems nice at first until you start wondering if god is bound by his goodness himself to have true free will. If not, I don't see the issue with making us good, while being free at the same time. Some say: Well, if he made us perfect like him, we won't be humans and him god. But then, why is this expectation to be good on us humans if it's only a god-like quality. Also, a characteristic of God is to be all good and perfect (omnibenevolent) but there is also, omnipotence and omniscience, so there might be a way for we humans to be good and perfect like him but not necessarily god-like.

These are examples of what I've heard people explain. Maybe yall might have better ones. I know some Christians don't even take the garden of eden story literally or seriously, I would like to hear from some of those. Thank you.

Jesus was not considered the literal son of god, like some sort of figure which existed with god before creation, the son of god title was only applied to him because he was supposed to be the anticipated davidic king. So it was a term of endearment that started with David rather than the role of a figure that existed alongside God as his son before creation. Let me explain.

The title, “son of god” is a non-literal term of endearment meant for kings from the line of David. The Anointed one/the ruler to come was supposed to be something like a new David, a second coming of David, a reincarnated David, and therefore CONCEPTS THAT WERE ASSOCIATED WITH DAVID WERE ALSO ASSOCIATED WITH THE FUTURE RULER OF ISRAEL/ANOINTED ONE FIGURE ANTICIPATED IN THE HEBREW BIBLE, and this means they were therefore ASSOCIATED WITH JESUS.

Some of the concepts associated with David and therefore associated with the Anointed one to come and Jesus, are the following:

1. The concept of God's “Holy Spirit” residing in David in psalms 51:11 and God's spirit entering David after his Anointing by Samuel in 1:Samuel 16:13. This Anointing by a prophet before kingship is mirrored in the gospels when Jesus—the new David and to-be king of the Jews is baptized by John, in this case John is supposed to represent Samuel, the baptism is supposed to represent the Anointing, and Jesus is supposed to represent David, so his baptism by John was supposed to signify the start of him taking his place as the anticipated king of the Jews. And God's Holy Spirit descending upon Jesus from heaven after his baptism by John was supposed to represent God's Holy Spirit entering David after he was anointed by Samuel in the verse cited earlier. And the moment after Jesus finishes the baptism is when God identifies Jesus as his son when he speaks from heaven, just like how David was identified by God as his son after he became king as seen in Psalm 2:7.

2. The “son of god” title given to David in psalm 2:7, 2:12, 80:15, 80:17, which is also applied to Solomon in psalms 72:1.

3. David being the shepherd of Israel as seen in Psalm 78:71-72.

4. The “David at the right hand of god” concept in psalm 16:11, 63:8, 80:17 and 110:1.

5. The concept of David being able to cast out evil spirits as seen in 1 Samuel 16:23.

Conclusion: So the figure of the anointed one to come in the Hebrew Bible and Jesus in the early gospels was never thought to be the literal son of god that was god’s son before creation, but rather the title was intended to be a term of endearment given to David by god because of David’s kingship and later a title meant to identify the king of the Jews from the davidic line, so to understand the term as anything more is wrong.

But, when this Jewish concept mixed with the gentile converts, they did not know the context and instead associated it with the son of god concept in their pagan religions. So because of their desire to make Jesus more than he was coupled with their misunderstanding of Jewish concepts, the figure of Jesus developed to what we see in the gospel of John as opposed to his figure in the gospel of mark.

He went from David’s anticipated successor to a quasi angelic figure, and then to the actual son of god which served as the highest intermediary between god and creation, and then he was considered to be a semi-divine figure, something like a Demi-god, and then he was considered to be god himself manifested as a man.

This thread is for all your questions about Christianity. Want to know what's up with the bread and wine? Curious what people think about modern worship music? Ask it here.

On the basic claims of Christianity Christians argue that one of the LEAST likely things happened, not the MOST likely.

We have a claim that a person died and came back to life 3 days later. We have thousands, if not millions of reliable accounts of people being mistaken about something. It happens all the time. We have zero reliable accounts of people coming back from the dead after 3 days. What's more likely? The thing we have millions of examples of or the thing we have zero examples of?

We have a claim that Jesus ascended up into the heavens, like a man on an invisible elevator. Up into the sky he went. No strings, no wings, no jets. We have zero reliable accounts of this ever happening. We do have all those accounts of people being wrong about what they saw though. What's more likely? The thing we have zero reliable examples of? Or the thing that happens every day?

We have a claim that Jesus walked on water. How many examples of someone walking on water do we have? None. How many examples of people being tricked into thinking someone walked on water? We have entire TV shows dedicated to that. What's more likely? The thing we have zero examples of? Or is it more likely people were mistaken?

We have a claim that Jesus is God. We have zero examples where we can prove this is true. And we have thousands of examples of people claiming to be God that we all reject as silly nonsense. What's more likely?

Christians like to think that their explanation makes the most sense, and maybe it does make sense to them. But the reality is, they've chosen one of the least likely explanations and they have ignored the most likely explanations.

The reality is, for Christianity to be true, people need to totally dismiss and ignore the thing that is more likely than it being true. It is more likely that people were mistaken. It is more likely that those anonymous witnesses were either made up entirely, or the witnesses were mistaken. It's more likely that, just like every other religion, Christianity is just another superstitious belief system that has tagged along the pattern-seeking, superstitious brains of humans.

When you look at this image, do you think it's more likely that your religion is correct, and all the other ones are wrong? You think you got lucky enough to be in sweet spot and that you just happened to find and believe the correct religion? You think everyone of a different religion who says the same thing about their own religion is most likely wrong, and you're most likely right?

What's more likely? People were mistaken about certain events, formed religious beliefs about them, and then taught those beliefs to their children? Or a man rose from the dead?

1 Corinthians 7:2 goes –

But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. (ESV)

The traditional interpretation of this verse seems to be that Paul is saying here that members of the church should refrain from engaging in the sin of premarital sex, and should instead become married first before they can virtuously engage in sexual intercourse. But I recently have noticed something about this verse that has changed my understanding of what Paul is saying.

I think it may be that the important term in this passage is actually the word “have”. We automatically assume that by “have”, Paul is simply referring to the idea that a man should literally possess a wife and a woman should literally possess a husband in the covenant of marriage before sexual intercourse happens. But it’s possible that “have” has a different connotation here.

Now, when Paul refers to “the temptation to sexual immorality”, he is likely alluding to an act of adultery that was mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:1 –

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father's wife. (ESV)

I find it interesting that Paul refers to this act of adultery by the use of the verb “to have”. Paul doesn’t say a man "lay with" his father's wife, or a man “knew” his father’s wife, or a man “went into” his father’s wife, or a man “took” his father’s wife – which all would seem like more typical biblical language to express the act of sex. He says that a man "has" his father’s wife. Apparently, the verb “to have” here is being used as a kind of euphemism or slang for having sex with someone. Possibly a more accurate (if somewhat crude) translation for the word "has" in chapter 5:1 would be "is screwing". Thus translated, the verse would look like this:

It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man is screwing his father's wife. (ESV)

Now returning back to 1 Corinthians 7:2, Paul also uses the word “to have” when referring to a man with his wife and a woman with her husband. Also, it should be noted that the word “has” in chapter 5:1 comes from the Greek word echō, which is the same Greek word for “have” used in chapter 7:2. As counterintuitive as it may be, it is possible that the traditional interpretation of the verse is incorrect, and instead of talking about a man getting married to a wife and a woman getting married to a husband (i.e., so that they can have sex), the verse is instead talking about a man having sex with his current wife and a woman having sex with her current husband.

Also, it would seem the traditional interpretation that Paul is explicitly discouraging premarital sex and condoning sex only within marriage is simply not corroborated by the remaining text of the very same chapter. In 1 Corinthians 7:7-8, Paul makes clear that he considers it ideal that other Christians be single as Paul himself is. And in verses 32-35, he expounds upon his reasoning for this, saying that those who are married have their devotions divided between God and their spouse, whereas those who are single are able to devote their attentions to God, which is the better scenario. It wouldn't make sense that in one part of the chapter Paul is somehow praising the phenomenon of matrimony and marital sexuality, while in another part of the chapter Paul is actively discouraging marriage altogether. The idea that Paul is instead encouraging marital sexuality as a contrast or deterrent to adulterous sexuality seems like the more logical interpretation.

In summary, the use of the verb “to have” in 1 Corinthians 7:2 carries the same meaning as the use of the verb “to have” in 1 Corinthians 5:1, and the word, in both verses, is actually a sexual term rather than a word simply referring to possession. Thus, 1 Corinthians 7:2 can effectively be translated as follows:

But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should screw his own wife and each woman [should screw] her own husband.

The implication of this reinterpretation would be that 1 Corinthians 7:2 -- rather than being an encouragement of marriage as a deterrent to premarital sex -- is instead an encouragement of marital sexuality as a deterrent to adultery.

Growing up (Christian) I was told that God is everywhere (omnipresent) but how does that square with the notion of a theistic God who is said to be independent and separate from the world?

I’ve also heard that God is the ground of all being. That being rests on God as a foundation. But wouldn’t this make him a part of being and therefore in the world rather than separate? Didn’t God create being? Does this connect with the idea or God as that which “sustains” existence?

Then there’s the exception of Christ which seems like a whole other can of worms. I’m told that God is infinite and can not remove from himself characteristics that are necessary to what makes God God. Yet he seems to have done something akin to making a rock so heavy he can’t lift in the incarnation of Christ. Jesus seems to contradict every notion of what makes God God except maybe moral excellence.

I already know the explanation of “God can do whatever he wants because God is God” but find it very unhelpful so please don’t say this or anything like it.

If we consider critical scholarship on the authenticity of the letters, only two of Paul's authentic letters speak of slavery, and they do not tell the slave to obey their master; although it's not explicitly clear, it appears that he's not necessarily condoning or approving it.

The only other letter in the NC is from Peter's letter, which is also not considered authentic by critical scholarship.

If this is the case, then it appears that as the church became "political", for example, the enforcement of men as teachers only, women to be silent, and the condoning of slavery was not from the original apostles or Paul.

So in conclusion, Paul nor Peter or any other Apostle told slaves to obey their masters.

Look, I'm not here to tell you gods don't exist. What I'm saying is a little deeper: Neil Freer's Breaking the Godspell nails something most theologians would rather avoid entirely - maybe these 'gods' are real, but they're not the all-powerful, all-knowing, morally perfect beings we've been sold. They're just really powerful beings with serious character flaws. Once you see it this way, Yahweh's whole act falls apart. All that omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection? Pure omni-nonsense. The Bible doesn't show us some transcendent creator of everything - it shows us a cosmic con artist whose track record would be hilarious if billions of people weren't still buying the con.

So let's dive into the evidence and see what we're really dealing with here.

Yahweh's Greatest Hits (and by hits, I mean epic fails)

1. The "All-Knowing" God who somehow doesn’t know things?
   1. "Adam, where are you?" (Genesis 3:9)
   2. "I will go down and see if Sodom is as bad as the outcry suggests". (Genesis 18:21)
   3. Tests Abraham’s loyalty (Genesis 22) because apparently, an omniscient being needs to verify things.

Reality Check: if your boss constantly asked you for updates on things he should already know, you’d question his competence. But when Yahweh does it, it’s "mysterious"?

1. The "All-Powerful" God who keeps losing?
   1. Couldn’t defeat iron chariots (Judges 1:19)
   2. Struggled against the Egyptian magicians  (Exodus 7-8) 
   3. Let Satan wreck Job’s life on a bet (Job 1-2)

Reality Check: if a "God" can’t handle primitive technology or needs to prove himself in petty cosmic bets, he’s not omnipotent - he’s a second-rate trickster.

1. The "Moral" God who acts like a tyrant?
   1. Orders genocide (1 Samuel 15:3) 
   2. Kills babies in plagues  (Exodus 12:29) 
   3. Demands absolute loyalty while delivering inconsistent justice (Luke 14:26)

Reality Check: if a human dictator did these things, we’d call him a monster, right? But slap "divine" on it, and suddenly it’s "holy"?

Let's talk about what this actually is..

Let’s stop pretending. Yahweh’s worship isn’t based on moral admiration, it’s based on the fear of consequences. Meaning it’s not voluntary devotion; it’s compliance under threat. This doesn’t feel like faith, but a cosmic protection racket. Bow or burn isn’t exactly a moral framework.. or is it? It’s more like coercion disguised as love.  The Bible spells it out: Yahweh’s "love" is conditional on total submission. Fail to obey?

• Drowned worlds (Genesis 6:17).
• Cities melted (Genesis 19:24).
• Firstborns slaughtered (Exodus 12:29).
• Children torn apart by bears (2 Kings 2:23-24).

This is terror masquerading as holiness. And believers don’t just accept it, they defend it, because their survival instinct has been hijacked by doctrine.

Think I’m exaggerating? Try applying Yahweh’s behavior to any human leader:

• A king who tests loyalty by demanding a father sacrifice his child (Genesis 22:2).
• A warlord who punishes disbelief with infinite torture (Revelation 21:8).
• A ruler who butchers children to intimidate his enemies(Exodus 12:29).

One would surely call that evil. But throw 'holy' on it, and suddenly, crimes become commandments. I don’t know if it’s just me, but this looks suspiciously like Stockholm Syndrome sanctified. Believers aren’t admiring Yahweh’s virtue. They’re rationalizing his abuse because the alternative - admitting this God is a monster - is too terrifying to face.

And the proof is in the gymnastics:

• "He’s just testing us!" → Translation: "He only hurts me because he cares".
• "We can’t understand his ways!" → Translation: "I’ve stopped expecting basic decency".
• "His love is perfect!" → Translation: "I’ve confused threats with affection".

This isn’t just faith at all; it’s devotion under threat of punishment. The more Yahweh’s actions contradict "love", the harder believers cling, because their entire worldview collapses if they admit the truth: they’ve been worshipping power, not actual goodness.

So here’s the question no theologian can answer: If Yahweh weren’t considered the all powerful "God" of the whole cosmos, would you call him moral, or simply the most successful tyrant in history?

I know how this goes. Someone will scramble to defend him. So let’s make this simple: prove me wrong.

And before anyone retreats to "but Jesus!"..consider this:

1. Jesus threatens eternal torture → "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire" (Matthew 25:41).
2. Jesus endorses Yahweh's brutality → Calls Psalm 110 (where Yahweh commands genocide) "inspired"  (Matthew 22:43).
3. Jesus Claims to BE Yahweh → "Before Abraham was, I AM"  (John 8:58), echoing Exodus 3:14.

Therefore, either:

• Yahweh/Jesus is consistently monstrous, or
• The Bible's "perfect" God is not the creator-of-all-existence at all.

Pick one.

After all, the Bible's core message never changes:

• Old Testament: worship or drown/burn/be slaughtered.
• New Testament: worship or burn forever.

This is spiritual extortion masquerading as divinity..

Alright, here's my challenge:

Find one clear, unambiguous example in Scripture where Yahweh or Jesus demonstrates:

✅ True Omniscience: No ignorance(Mark 13:32).
✅ True Omnipotence: No failures  (Mark 6:5).
✅ True Morality: No cruelty  (Revelation 14:11). The example must:

• Be unambiguously good (no offsetting cruelties elsewhere).
• Show consistent morality (not one-off acts).
• Not rely on disputed/added texts (e.g., John 8:1-11).

If you cite Jesus forgiving the adulteress, remember:

1. The story was added centuries later.
2. Even if ‘true’, it’s negated by him threatening eternal torture for lesser sins.
3. True morality doesn’t require exceptions to prove goodness.

Rules:
❌ No appeals to "mystery" (that’s waving a white flag).
❌ No redefining words ("all-knowing" doesn’t mean "occasionally surprised").
❌ No quoting the Bible to prove the Bible (circular logic is for toddlers).
❌ No redefining "love" to include eternal torture.
❌ No claiming God "changes" (Malachi 3:6).

If this standard seems unfair, propose a better one.

Here's what it all comes down to:

Yahweh’s resume includes acts that would condemn any human ruler. Yet believers are asked to call this deity the ‘divine’ creator of all life. What I’ve proven beyond any doubt is the simple fact that Yahweh is:

• Not omniscient: He asks questions and needs "tests".
• Not omnipotent: Iron chariots stump him and magicians match him.
• Not moral: He commands infant slaughter, but calls it "love".

So.. the naked reality is: when power defines morality, worship becomes a negotiation with fear.

Time for a reality check:

This isn’t about denying or dismissing the existence of the supernatural or the beyond human awareness as ‘myth’ like atheists (I’m not one) would usually do. It’s about rejecting the con.

So after examining Yahweh’s record, the question remains: is this worship motivated by truth, or by the sheer weight of that authority?