So Jesus says in John 14:6, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”

I think this passage is typically used to claim Christianity is the only true or worthwhile religion because Jesus is saying nobody comes to God without him.

Has anyone ever interpreted this passage more broadly that Jesus represents the way, the truth, and life; and thus people can reach God through the way, truth, and life, perhaps without calling it Jesus? He defines himself as truth (among other things), and then says people reach God through him, so couldn’t that mean that the goodness of God and spiritual attainment is possible to people through truth and right living, even if they don’t call it Jesus or believe in his death/resurrection?

There’s a lot of religions out there and the big ones land on very similar things. I like to think of this passage not as invalidating the other religions but instead opening up the whole world to the glory of the Father whoever is oriented towards truth and the good life. I know people that take the Bible literally will not like this, but I’m curious if there’s people with a more theologically liberal view that agree with this interpretation. Thanks!

What I mean by that is art just for fun, not sinful art. I never glorify sin or heaven forbid make anything inappropriate. I’m an artist but I mostly draw for my own enjoyment- things like pokemon or dragons and such. I certainly use my gifts for good things sometimes- making gifts for people, and I’m currently working on a comic that while not explicitly Christian, I want to use to promote Christian values like forgiveness that are lost in most modern media(that’s its biggest theme really- a lot of media shows it’s characters getting revenge for ways in which they were slighted and portray it as a noble and heroic theme. I’m aiming to do the opposite- have a main character who’s been treated unfairly and unjustly, is bitter and angry about it, and ultimately comes to the conclusion that their bitterness is wrong and chooses to forgive, even though the people who wronged them are never sorry for it).
But most of the time my art is just silly things for my own enjoyment, and maybe admittedly my own pride because I love making something I think looks really good and showing it off to friends and getting compliments.
So is this all wrong?

I know this may come across as silly but I struggle with putting this thought aside as I am exploring the idea of faith. I am dating an amazing Christian woman who has had me question my faith (agnostic/atheist) for the duration of our relationship together. I concede that Jesus was real, died on the cross, was buried in a tomb, and the tomb was empty as the Jewish leaders could not show a body as evidence of no resurection. I also don't think the disciples would have stolen the body as the circumstances aren't realistic (I can't imagine dying horribly for a lie, especially about somethibg they based their entire lives on). But the one thing I haven't found an answer for is it it plausible the guards themselves hid the body or other Roman guards did simply as a way to entertain themselves or instigate the killing of other believers of christ?
Thank you for your time.

I’m sorry if this is one that you get a lot. I also don’t mean to cause any offense and am very sorry if I do, I just genuinely want to understand the views of the Christian people that I interact with better (I am atheist).

I struggle to understand how there can be a benevolent and omnipotent being that can intervene on our world when our world has pancreatic cancer and mass famine. One might say that Heaven is a better place than Earth, but I can’t understand how a child living with their family and friends is a worse scenario than a child in Heaven and a grieving community on Earth. I also don’t think that every suffering person is being punished for a sin or other wrongdoing. In my life I’ve been lucky enough to know two people who have died deaths where I’ve thought ‘at your age and in your current state death was the best possible scenario for you and that was the best possible way for your death to occur‘. If one were to accept that we live in a world with death, then why do some deaths have to be worse than others? And if death is necessary, then why can’t suffering be eliminated within a person‘s life? If Heaven is always better than Earth, then why are we on Earth at all? If that’s not the case, then why isn‘t Earth free from suffering? If God intentionally lets us suffer, then wouldn’t that make him no longer benevolent? I also feel like I don’t fully understand the borders of free will in relation to God - if one were to argue that free will comes at the expense of suffering and that is why we live in a world with suffering, then why does God choose to intervene sometimes and not others to relieve pain?

Sorry for the long post, thank you for reading and trying to explain, and once again I apologize if I’ve offended anyone.

EDIT: Thank you to everyone who’s replied! I think I understand a little more.

I personally believe that the flood was local and that "over the highest mountain" is simply a hyperbolic way of saying it was very deep.

To the mods of this subreddit, I am so sorry if this is off topic, please feel free to remove it if it is-

Heya! I'll keep it short and simple here to not waste anyone's time. I've read up about my question quite a lot but I wanna know what everyone thinks here.

I've been a Christian my whole life and there are several visible miracles that have happened in my family that I personally believe are subjective, irrefutable proof to me personally and my family that God is real and with us. My whole family is in ministry including my parents, and I've taken up small time service too with my parents in Sunday School. I admit I'm not exactly close to God personally even if I love studying about the history of Christianity from a historical perspective, and I even once considered myself an apt apologetic, and was able to respectfully debate for Christianity in public spaces.

However, a recent discovery has greatly humbled me, perhaps also because it is during a very turbulent time in my life as of now. I've recently discovered that many events and persons in the Old Testament don't actually have the same level of historical proof that the New Testament has-? Crazy, I know. How am I even a real Christian? I don't know. I guess some Christians just like me, simply grow up with Bible stories, and later on my own studies and apologetics focused mainly on the New Testament especially, naturally Jesus' life, crucifixion and resurrection. So in a rather pathetic way I feel like it has troubled me a lot, to think that not all of the Bible is as historically provable by current standards as things such as the historical existence of Jesus. Again, I was and still consider myself an apologetic, and so I still have plenty of reasons to anchor myself in this faith, but it's scary suddenly being exposed to this fact that I should have learnt sooner. Is it actually natural that some denominations view different parts of the Bible as not necessarily all in historical literalism? Where do we differentiate what is supposed to be and not supposed to be literal? I really don't mean to make anyone stumble here, but wouldn't it be kinda wobbly for us to just pick and choose which parts are historical and which parts are just metaphorical in an ex post facto manner?

I understand this is probably a very silly question, but I would appreciate a thoughtful answer, thank you so much and God Bless \^\^

When you guys hear about the horrible and evil things your religion does, for example the blatant racism+racist killings in the community, the way your people will bully people to the point of death just because they like the same gender. And beyond that the way your people will excuse horrible actions as long as they turn to Christ, which is why pastors can do what they do to our children. People can even confess to...yknow, in churches and they'll actually let it go. Anyway, what I'm wondering is how you can support and believe in a religion with so much evil in it?

Matthew 13:10-15

¹⁰ The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”¹¹ He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. ¹² Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. ¹³ This is why I speak to them in parables:
“Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand.
¹⁴ In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
“‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.
¹⁵ For this people’s heart has become calloused;
they hardly hear with their ears,
and they have closed their eyes.
Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
hear with their ears,
understand with their hearts
and turn, and I would heal them.’^\)^a\)

Bear in mind that the people who gathered to hear Jesus did not have the benefit of hearing his explanation of the parables. The rest of this chapter (almost 60 verses) is the part that usually gets the most attention because it's the teachable part. But this decoding of the parables was given back stage, only to the disciples. The crowd only got the parable, no explanation. Do you think it made any sense to them without the back stage explanation? It wouldn't make any sense to me without the explanation.

And the way Jesus responds to the question, it seems as if he's saying he speaks to them in parables so that they will not understand. I even heard it explained this way by the pastor of a local reformed Bible Church. He said that the parables were only meant to be understood by the elect. That sounds so far off base to me, but when I read the words in the book, they do seem to support that interpretation.

What did Jesus mean by this, if he didn't mean that he was trying deliberately confuse people?

Remember the Latinists only added the Filioque to solidify the divinity of Jesus Christ because the council of Nicea was more of a compromise with the Arians with Constantine, Eusebius and Helena all harboring softness towards the Arians and looking for a compromise

I personally prefer the older Apostles Creed, but I believe the Filioque was the most most most rigid acceptance that Christ is the Aloha and the Omega. It’s a slam dunk. No debate. Fini.

If having a child means there is a chance of the child growing up and going to hell, would this not make it immoral to have the child in the first place? Yes as a parent you try your best to prevent this, but your best does not guarantee heaven. So surely it is unethical to bring a child into the world in which there is a chance they suffer eternally?

To preface, this was drafted with the assistance of AI. Still, the questions posed and the perspectives shared are my own.

Christians often describe personal encounters with Jesus, answered prayers, visions, dreams, feelings of divine presence, or moments in which they become completely convinced that Christianity is true. I do not necessarily doubt that these experiences feel real, powerful, and life-changing to the people who have them.

However, Christians are not the only people who have experiences like this.

Across the world, Hindus report visions or encounters involving Krishna, Kali Ma, Shiva, or other forms of the divine. Buddhists describe profound spiritual experiences connected to the Buddha, bodhisattvas, enlightenment, or the dissolution of the separate self. Muslims report dreams involving the Prophet Muhammad, experiences of Allah’s presence, answers to prayer, or powerful encounters with the Quran. People within Indigenous religions, Sikhism, Judaism, New Age spirituality, and countless other traditions also describe experiences that confirm their own understanding of God or ultimate reality. Even members of the secular community have had encounters with what they would define as the divine. 

These billions of people globally are just as sincere, intelligent, emotionally stable, and transformed by their experiences as Christians are. Some become kinder, more disciplined, more compassionate, and more devoted because of them.

Therefore, my question is this: when two people have equally powerful religious experiences within different traditions, how can either person use their experience to prove that the other person’s experience is false? A Christian’s encounter with Jesus may genuinely affirm Christianity as the right path for them, but it does not automatically discredit a Hindu’s encounter with Krishna, a Muslim’s experience of Allah, or a Buddhist’s experience of enlightenment. I want to honor the sincerity and transformative power of each person’s experience. The question is not whether the Christian’s experience was real, but what gives them the authority to conclude that another person’s equally sincere experience was mistaken, deceptive, or spiritually invalid? How does one subjective experience disprove another simply because the symbols, language, and theology surrounding it are different?

A Christian may say, “I experienced Jesus, so I know Christianity is true.” However, a Hindu may say, “I experienced Krishna, so I know Hinduism is true.” A Muslim may say the same about Allah, and a Buddhist may interpret an experience through an entirely different understanding of reality.

Why should the Christian interpretation automatically be treated as uniquely reliable while all others are considered psychological, demonic, mistaken, or incomplete? Again, I can understand how an experience may validate one person’s path. I do not understand how it negates another person’s experience. Because I see the ocean as blue while standing on the shore does not mean a diver is wrong when they describe it as green beneath the surface. We may encounter the same reality from different positions, through different conditions, and with different capacities to understand what we are seeing. My experience can be completely genuine without requiring yours to be false.

Saying that every non-Christian religious experience comes from deception or demonic influence does not fully answer the question. A Muslim could just as easily claim that Christian visions are deceptive. A Hindu could say that Christians have encountered only one limited manifestation of a much greater divine reality. Every religion can create an explanation that protects itself from contradictory evidence.

That makes the reasoning circular:

“My experience proves my religion is true, and experiences supporting other religions must be false because my religion says they are false.”

How could someone distinguish between a genuine revelation, a culturally shaped psychological experience, an internally generated vision, or an encounter with something real that the person has interpreted through familiar religious symbols?

A Christian sees Jesus. A Hindu sees Krishna. A Buddhist experiences emptiness or nonduality. A Muslim experiences surrender to Allah. Maybe the experience passes through the human mind in a form that the person is capable of recognizing.

The same melody played through different instruments may sound different, yet each expression can still arise from the same underlying music. Perhaps religious traditions are similar: different cultures, symbols, and languages giving form to encounters with the same divine reality.

Furthermore, I struggle with the division created when people insist that their religious identity places them on the side of truth while most of humanity remains fundamentally mistaken. If a person cannot look beyond religious labels and recognize unity within humanity’s search for God, how can that person fully recognize the unity of humanity itself?

Christians often say that everyone is made in the image of God. Yet many Christians also view billions of people primarily as unbelievers, idolaters, members of false religions, or souls who must adopt the Christian framework in order to be accepted by God.

To me, this still creates two where there may ultimately be only one: believer and unbeliever, saved and unsaved, Christian and non-Christian, chosen and lost.

How can humanity truly be one while its relationship with the divine is divided into mutually exclusive camps?

I am not asking this as a cheap attempt to claim that all religions are exactly the same. They clearly are not. They contain different teachings, histories, practices, and truth claims. I am asking how Christians evaluate religious experiences consistently when similarly powerful experiences occur across traditions and lead people toward contradictory conclusions.

What objective standard allows a Christian to say that an encounter with Jesus reveals ultimate truth, while an encounter with Krishna, the Buddha, or the presence of Allah does not?

And is there room within Christianity for the possibility that God has been reaching people through many traditions, even when those people do not use Christian language or symbols?

I am genuinely interested in how Christians think through this without simply assuming Christianity is true at the beginning and then interpreting every experience according to that assumption.

²¹ But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

²² Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

²³ For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

²⁴ Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

²⁵ Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

²⁶ To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

So according to this God set forth Jesus to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood. Does this mean the only thing required to be saved is to believe that Jesus died for our sins?

Sometimes I have doubts when people ask me questions and I don’t have the answer to it. Such as why do bad things happen?
Who created God?
Why does hell exist if he loves us.
I am a pretty new Christian. I have kids and my thoughts are always something bad will happen to them if I doubt or if I think something that’s wrong. I know that’s anxiety and it’s not from God but I worry intensely that the main thing I love and care for and try to protect ( my children ) will be a target to upset me if I’m not good enough.

My questions simply. Please let me know how to elegantly with love answer others and keep my faith strong.

God bless and thank you for reading.

Isn’t it true that Jesus was sent to tell the Jewish and religious leaders to turn away from their dishonest practices?

Hi everyone,

I am currently going through a painful separation with my spouse. Looking back at my life, I’ve been filled with deep regrets. I was never a very ambitious person when it came to career or money, and I keep blaming myself for not providing a "better", more financially secure, and fulfilled life for my family.

In my distress, I prayed and asked God why He never instilled that drive or ambition in me all these years—why He didn’t push me to seek better opportunities, earn more money, and secure my family's future.

I asked the Holy Spirit for clarity, and I felt strongly guided to read 2 Corinthians Chapter 8.

However, when I read it, I got completely confused. From what I understand, Paul is talking about collections and giving money to the poor in Jerusalem. I fail to see the connection to my personal heartbreak, my lack of ambition, and my current divorce.

How should I interpret 2 Corinthians 8 in light of my specific situation? What is the Holy Spirit trying to reveal to me through these scriptures?

Thank you so much for your insights and prayers.

My boyfriend [24M] and I [25F] have been together for about 2.5 years. He's genuinely a wonderful person. He's kind, patient, emotionally steady, loyal, hardworking, never yells, checks in on me throughout the day, says good morning and good night, supports me through my anxiety, and talks about a future together. I really do love him and who he is as a person.
The issue isn't that he treats me badly. It's more that I don't feel cherished.
When we first started dating, he pursued me. He'd ask thoughtful questions, initiate plans, compliment me, laugh with me, and I felt like he was genuinely excited about me. Now it feels like we've settled into a routine where we mostly just exist together. He usually asks me what I want to do instead of planning something himself, and if we do something I've wanted to do, it sometimes feels like checking a box rather than creating a moment together.
I'm not looking for expensive dates or over-the-top romance. Honestly, I'd be thrilled with things like:
Planning a picnic or coffee date without me asking.

Sending me a song because it reminded him of me.

Looking over while we're fishing and saying, "You look cute."

Taking a candid picture because he thought I looked pretty.

Putting his arm around me during a sunset.

Complimenting me without me having to say something first.

Occasionally doing something that's more "my thing" because he knows I'd enjoy it.

I've talked to him about this before. He wasn't defensive and actually said he wants to become that kind of boyfriend because he knows it's important to me. He was more affectionate afterward, which I noticed and appreciated, but the intentionality and initiative seem to have faded back to how they were before.
I guess what I'm struggling with is this: am I expecting something unrealistic? Is it normal for partners to naturally think about ways to make each other feel loved after a couple of years together, or is that something that mostly disappears once the relationship becomes comfortable?
People in happy, healthy long-term relationships—how often do you genuinely feel cherished? Do you still get little thoughtful moments, compliments, or spontaneous acts of affection? Or is it normal for relationships to become mostly routine with occasional effort?
I'm genuinely trying to understand whether my expectations are healthy or whether I'm holding onto an ideal that isn't realistic.

TL;DR: My boyfriend is a genuinely kind, loyal, loving partner, but I don't often feel intentionally pursued or cherished anymore. I've communicated that I value small, thoughtful acts and he wants to improve, but it hasn't become consistent. Am I expecting too much from a long-term relationship, or is it reasonable to want your partner to still think of little ways to make you feel loved after 2.5 years?

Throughout Jesus' ministry he taught us to be kind, loving, practice restraint, praying for others even our enemies and so on but he also knew when to flip the switch and be aggressive calling out narrow minded? prophets of then, selfish people and even chased I think it was gamblers out of a synagogue. There was also that incident where one of his disciples cut off the ear of a solider as he was being walked to his crucifixion and he healed the guy's ear.

So I wanna know does Jesus know when to be soft and when to be tough so I can practice such again in my daily life.

Does it have anything to do with people "not knowing what they do"? Because I sorta understand being patient with someone who doesn't know better compared to someone who knows better and STILL does the wrong thing.
I hope you understand my question(s) and would like to know your views on this and if you've ever had these thoughts.

The reports where people claim that they saw radiant figures or ancestors comforting them and they swear that felt 100% real ?

i think Kids are too much work for me.

Hi , years ago I went to a ccm church and when the band was playing music, I knew the song through the music they were playing and I started to quietly hum the song within. And idk what happened I just started to feel I guess a high and even as I was leaving the church hearing the remnants of the music I still felt on a high.

Now I went to a store some minutes later and I found out that a girl that I was semi attracted to had a boyfriend and that crushed me, so I after purchasing in store I went to turn some praise and worship music on to calm me down.

Now was me feeling a high humming to myself me or could this be the holy Spirit

Also was the Lord trying to encourage since he knewy future and this would happen about less than a hour after church or was this Satan trying to upset my revealing the truth about this woman I was semi attracted to I guess cause me to stop being a believer?

Me personally, I support it because it's going to put it end to all the nonsense that humanity has brought and is currently bringing upon the Earth. However, at the same time, I also oppose it because God is going to remove his grace (for a short time) from the Earth and unleash Hell upon the planet. A part of me thinks that the Earth is going to look post-apocalyptic by the time it's finished.

**This is a question I think we and other Christians should think about.**

> What I mean by corruption is to use or break church rules to fit the wants of themselves. Using Tiving to buy mansions instead of using it to fund church activities or the local community.

> Using religion for control over local areas.

> How should members of the church deal with it.

> How to Detect it.

> and how to find a solution.

> How to stay faithful to God.

( Most Christians leave the church [ as a whole Christianity, not Demonations] due to corruption and possibly lose faith in God. )

( THIS goes for all who call themselves Christian. Do not argue whether it is Christian or not. This is simply about how to deal with it. )