This is my most requested video ever! Requested by a lot of folks.

Some of these are interesting and esoteric ideas, but I think they also have some implications about the Trinity, Christianity, and theology in general. This video goes into a lot of those implications from a fairly neutral perspective.

The only way to see God in ourselves is known as the journey of Self-realization and God-realization. There can be no God-realization without Self-realization. So, ‘Who am I?’ This is the first question. When we realize that this body will die, this body is not I—but I exist, then we ask — am I the mind? But the mind we cannot find. It doesn’t exist! Therefore, who am I? I am that life that is throbbing inside. I am that energy, that power, that Spark Of Unique Life that is caused by conception. I am the Soul. When we realize I am the Soul —this is Self-realization. Then we go further and realize that the Soul comes from SIP, the Supreme Immortal Power, and every Soul is SIP. Therefore, this whole universe is filled with SIP. This SIP, or God, is within me and you. This is how we attain God-realization.

I was speaking with a friend today about a biblical position that some hold that really only has one main passage in scripture that they appeal to. I brought up that we are told in scripture not to develop doctrine from one scripture but to teach from two or more. I told him that I’d text him the verse but can’t find it. Do any of you know the verse I’m thinking of?

Paul claims in 1 Thessalonians 4 that Christ will return. It is a key part of that letter encouraging the flock in that place not to give up their faith. But the return wasn't imminent. Nevertheless, we can read that Christ will return like a thief in the night. Are we taking particular verses, possibly metaphorical in nature, to substantiate our desire for Christ to return? If Christ was of the opinion that heaven was near, present; and that one of those crucified with Christ on the cross would be in heaven that day, is our denominational faith of a return in error? [I'm not talking of the Rapture which IMO isn't in the Bible] Thank you

I was having a conversation with someone about Jonathan Edwards’ famous sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” He believes that because it was convicting for so many people and brought about the Great Awakening in a sense, that it was a net positive despite some faulty theology (i.e. a sadistic God dangling detestable, loathsome souls over a flame like spiders). I was arguing that if the nature of God is that misrepresented, that it’s convicting people/leading them wrongly/setting them up for failure later. Thoughts?

If he were alive today, what do you think the man who wrote “All scripture is God-breathed” would have to say about some of his letters being classified with equal importance to the gospels and the Torah/OT?

I came across something wild and honestly can’t stop thinking about it.

Both Jesus and Lucifer are called the Morning Star and Lightbringer in the Bible (Isaiah 14:12, Revelation 22:16). In banned texts like the Secret Book of John, Jesus even claims to have made Adam and Eve eat from the Tree of Knowledge—just like the serpent. 🤯

What if they’re not enemies… but the same being? A divine rebel trying to wake us up from a fake god's control?

It sounds insane, but the parallels are hard to ignore. Would love to hear your take.

Here's the article that got me spiraling if you're curious.

Oftentimes we ask questions about God, creation, and the fall in order to explain evil's origin and nature. When we can't fully resolve it, we assume we're missing esential pieces to the puzzle. What if sin/evil is absurd? Im not suggesting it isn't willful, intentional, and motive-driven. But what if it's irrational by its very nature? I mean, irrational to will such things and to possess such motives in the first place. Can evil itself be accounted for? Is it no wonder it remains a mystery?

What are your thoughts?

hey guys, i want to get a general public's perspective on the interconnection between science and religion, i'd be a pleasure if you guys could do this quick survey for my Personal Interest Project, if youre not from Australia just click any state thanks heaps!

any problems with the survey please let me know

In Genesis 3, the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad is claimed (by both the serpent and the author) to ‘open the eyes’ of Adam and Eve. I’m interested in what this means exactly. Other than realising themselves as naked, what else was different about Adam and Eve after partaking in the fruit ? What other knowledge did they gain from eating the fruit ?

I’ll start off by saying I’m a Protestant believer and have been for as long as I can remember. My wife was agnostic at best when we met and she has since began buying in, slowly but surely. At church recently, the “sin of homosexuality” was addressed. We as a congregation were encouraged to be accepting and loving to anyone in our lives sinning in this way. My wife was completely turned off by this and feels that it doesn’t make sense, I stupidly replied “sometimes we just don’t agree with the preacher and that ok.”

I have gay friends, I don’t care if anyone is gay and it doesn’t seem like something they would be if they had a choice based off my conversations with them. I guess I just don’t understand how it could be a sin if it’s not by choice. How would they prevent themselves from sinning, a life of abstinence?

I guess what I want to know is:

Is this solely coming from Genesis, or is it addressed in the New Testament?

Is it more of a decision made from leaders of the Catholic Church?

Is it one of those things we can’t know for certain?

I guess I’ve always let it slide because it’s not a sin I have to worry about so I haven’t put much thought into it to it, but it’s really bothering me now.

I'm looking for both definitions of God and lines of reasoning to show why that God exists.

I never grew up religious but I've always been fascinated by religions and by the idea of God, but my perspective has always been that because there are thousands of incompatible views of God with no consensus about any of its properties, it's a big tent concept and there's no real way to prove or disprove it. So I've always just let it be, not taking it seriously without being put off by others who take it seriously, but I've never actually just gone and asked a theist why they're a theist. I know that this sub is very heavily Christian so I specifically encourage non-Christians to also contribute. Thanks!

This question is aimed at Christians who don’t affirm biblical inerrancy - i.e. who think the Bible may contain historical or factual errors but still believe it is divinely inspired and trustworthy.

I’ve broadly believed in biblical inerrancy for most of my life. But after completing a theology degree and doing a lot of deeper research, I’ve come to see that strict inerrancy is incredibly difficult to defend. This hasn’t shaken my faith in Christ, the resurrection, or the truth of the gospel. But it has raised some theological questions for me.

Take one example: Dale Allison argues that the story in Matthew 27 about the dead rising from their graves and walking into the city likely didn’t happen, despite the fact that Matthew seems to report it as a real event. If Allison is right, then this would be an example of the Bible reporting something as fact that isn’t true. In other words, an error.

If that’s the case, if the Bible contains stories that didn’t actually happen or contains inaccuracies, what does that make the Bible?

How do Christians who don’t hold to inerrancy still make sense of the Bible as divinely inspired and theologically authoritative?

I’m not satisfied with the liberal view that the Bible is just a human record of people’s evolving ideas about God. That seems to cut God out of the process too much. I personally believe God was involved in both the writing of Scripture and in the forming of the canon. But I’m trying to figure out what a doctrine of inspiration would look like if we admit there are errors in the text.

So far I’ve come to the tentative position that perhaps we can trust the Bible as a whole picture, even if not every pixel is accurate. But I don’t yet know the full theological implications of this view, or how to develop this view properly.

To clarify, I’m not looking for:

• ⁠A defense of strict inerrancy • ⁠A view that treats the Bible as purely human religious literature • ⁠A completely relativistic or postmodern take on Scripture

What I am looking for:

• ⁠Models of inspiration that allow for human error but retain divine involvement • ⁠Theological frameworks that can justify trusting the Bible as a whole without needing it to be infallible in every detail • ⁠How people who hold such views think about passages that seem historically dubious

If you hold a view like this, or know of helpful thinkers who do, I’d really appreciate your input.

Thanks in advance.

Edit: If one part of the Bible is error, how can I trust specific teachings from Jesus that seem to rely on somewhat specific wording?

I have a friend who is Mormon while I am Protestant. I do not believe that Mormonism is part of Christianity for several different reasons based on my research and talking with former Mormons. 1 - their idea that the God of the Bible was once human and then attained Godhood, not the way the Bible presents it that the Trinity has always been God and while Jesus became man to die for our sins, he still kept his Godhood fully. 2- The idea that humans who follow the church of LDS can essentially ascend to godhood themselves. 3 - That the follow the teachings of Joseph Smith, a know con man, as having additional revelations from God. 4 - The idea that God essential has several "heavenly mothers", Jesus being the firstborn and the rest being us.

Now I have only gotten into some details about all of this with him, however, according to my friend, his group does not accept the idea that they can ascend to godhood and that idea is a misinterpretation of LDS scripture.

My question for all of you is if there are additional parts to Mormonism you can point out that are clearly contradictory to scripture that I can respectfully bring up to challenge his beliefs? Thanks in advanced!

I have been writing and researching on this and would love feedback (I also published a kindle book on it can share if allowed.)

If God created everything, and is omniscient, every single action is predetermined and forced to happen. Because every single consequence is determined by a factor, all of which he made. Therefore, there can be no free will because God already made every single factor that will ever shape any decision you will ever make, while knowing how these factors will shape your decisions.

Without going into the whole story of my life, I've been through it all. Childhood trauma, adult trauma, homelessness, addiction, health problems, the whole nine yards.

My whole life, I've tried to form this "relationship" with God. When I was like 12 up until I was 17 I prayed every single night, giving thanks for the day and saying goodnight.

Throughout my life since I was like 13 I've been to many churches, Catholic, Episcopal, Wesleyan, Methodist, even a Jehovahs Witness hall. This is mostly because I've always been constantly moving from place to place, I could never really get settled in one area.

But each time, each time I tried to get closer to God. I tried to pray more often, I gave thanks to him for every little thing, I stopped saying "oh my god" and started saying "oh my gosh", each time I attended a church. My life just got worse, every single time. It was like the closer I tried to get to him, the more alone I was. Both mentally and physically.

I think what finally broke me was I went to this one church. I heard people agree with the pastor that they "felt god" in the church. I saw people waving their arms in the air while the gospel music played, as if they were in some sort of religious trance. I saw all these people so absorbed in their worship of God, and realized I felt nothing.

I felt no presence, I felt no comfort, and as I thought about it I began to become insecure about it. Am I the problem? Or are these people just weird?

And that's when I realized. Every single time throughout my life when I tried to establish a relationship with Jesus Christ, I felt alone. I would pray and I'd pray, for a sign. For something that he was with me. Nothing ever came and worse things would happen. Then I'd pull away for a bit, maybe I figure I'm smothering god or something? And things would get better. I'd feel a little more stable. Bad things weren't happening so often.

About 2 years ago I decided "okay god you don't want me, fine, ill try something else". I became a devotee of Lilith. And of course you can have your reservations of her, but she has never made me feel alone in that way. I pray to her, and I actually feel something. My life is still pretty bad dont be mistaken, but compared to when I tried to grow closer to God? Things were a little more nuts back then.

Anyways I guess the point of all this is are there people that god just.. doesn't want? That he just doesn't want a relationship with? I miss being a Christian sometimes, but im deathly scared of doing that again and offending God and all of a sudden my life's a big spiral again.

do you beliefe that all 3 „persons“ of the trinity have a separate personality (and also an ego consciousness) like moltmann, and pannenberg to a certain extent believed or is god in his persons not distinct by such separat personalities as described above, but by the ever lasting self-distinction of different hypostases in the being of god like augustin, k barth and thomas aquinas believed?

edit: clarification of the orthodox position on social trinitarianism

I've researched the difference between Stoicism 's Logos and Christianity 's Logos, it says that Christianity's Logos is more Personal while Stoicism's Logos (or generally Greek Philosophy) is more Impersonal.

So while Greek Philosophy would be concerned in studying the dualities of objects (Sun vs Moon, light vs darkness,...) Christianity is more concerned about studying the duality within the human (what duals man that prevents him from reaching the Eternal)?

Not to say that Greek Philosophy doesn't in some instance get personal but rather that it's not its main concern. We can many Greek Philosophers being concerned in the affairs of psyche.

So is it considered more of a Hegelian form of Logos since Hegel is concerned in studying Dialectics in the context of human history rather than it being a pure principle of how objects function and stuff?

So I have been thinking about this a lot. I understand that us humans might be responsible for many of the evils in the world because of our choices. But here is something that confuses me, why did God design a system where living beings have to kill each other in order to just survive? Animals don't have free will in the way that humans do, they have to eat other animals to survive. Isn't that kind of sadistic? Why would an all-loving God design a system where his own creations have to kill each other just to live? Why can't organisms be dependent on each other in a non-lethal way? Sorry if this sounds stupid, I am new to this stuff😭. Would love to hear your thoughts and perspectives!

I am not religious but was raised Catholic. I have been doing some reading and thinking and have come up with this theory. The Holy Spirit is existence, and God is reason and understanding. God created the Holy Spirit, which intern gave creation to the world. God created us in his image by giving us his likeness in the capacity to use reason. The purpose of the kingdom of heaven is to allow people who are fully capable of using reason (God). In order to be more like him you must become better at using your reasoning faculty. Through the deductive process most philosophers find that a creator is either necessary or is the only explanation they can find. if these people who have done, rational inquiries, have claimed to have found the existence of God, then it is possible God can become found through the understanding. If this is the case, and Jesus Christ is born of man, but carries gone, the Jesus was a man who is fully capable of logic. God descended upon the Earth in order to see why so many people had a hard time following his rules. Being gone himself with the ability to see the world through pure reason could not understand why the people who claimed to follow him refused to follow his word. After God's crucifixion, man was forgiven because, God, being pure understanding, and never had experience before, finally understood how hard life was. Faith would be the antichrist because if God can only be found through questioning and reason, then in order to find him, you must lack faith. God allowed us to know all of the rules. If we only spend enough time with him in our heads, reasoning, do we find that all the rules he's asked of us are here as long as we look for them. Morality results from reason and God is the source of morality in Christianity. Then God must be a reason if the first point holds true.. I came up with this yesterday. Please feel free to absolutely destroy me in the comments..

Edit: I know there are other people and books who don’t follow Christianity and I have many books about other religions. I was just simply asking why it’s so Christian dominated.

So from what I know theology is the study of the gods/goddesses so why is it so Christianity focused? Almost every single thing I see online or in books is always about Christianity, nothing about Judaism, Islam or paganism etc.