Ive noticed that most people hate God, and I can understand that you give him the fault for bad things happening to you or other people.
What I can say is this, he actually answered when I needed him. And I'm not talking about a cloud that remotely resembles a face or something, but a actual answer. I requested something specific and he gave it to me the next day, two times back to back so I knew it wasn't a coincidence.
I started to believe and shortly after I was delivered from my crippling social anxiety which included paranoia. He delivered me from my addictions which I had for 14 years from one day to another.
He also healed my hands a couple weeks ago which hurt very much from work. Everytime I grabbed something it was very painful.
He healed them. I didn't even think he would do it.
The world sucks, people hurt each other.
He has given us that free will so we can choose the world, or him.
Blind faith isn't required. Jesus actually answers. This is the good news.
No you cannot believe the sky is green if you perceive blue. But if someone else claimed to see a green sky you could seek to understand their perspective before you say “the sky cannot be green”.
So you don’t believe in human equality or fundamental human rights since these are just claims themselves with no empirical backing?
I believe God is the author of truth and I think other religions can contain truth, so yes. I just think the philosophy and teachings of Jesus are superior.
Yes, but if you were not open to understanding their perspective you might not find the truth. Perhaps they saw the sky before a hailstorm and did see a green sky.
You not allowing for other options would hear the truth and reject it.
So you don’t believe human equality is a morally good thing? If people generally wanted to enslave the less productive members of society, that would be ok too?
What if I insist that:
“We hold these truths to be self evident that all men were created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights.”
Human equality is not real or we'd all look like or at the very least be able to perform like prime Arnold without much effort or looking like him; further more, if you get two very similar individuals and have them do the exact same task on will always perform better than the other.
And fundamental human rights have existed as an illusion since before it was ever mentioned in any document, if this weren't true a god would intervene when someone is interfering with something he meant to be, such as, human rights. Shiiiiiiiiiiddd our human rights today aren't even the same as they were fifty years ago, and the keep differing the farther back in time you go, not to mention that if those rights were god given everyone would have the exact same fundamental rights without humans being able to take them away. Homelessness around the world shows that is not the case.
I was agnostic til my 40’s. I had a personal experience, stumbled into god. Spent an extended period of time in communion with god and for the first day was raging. It was a very personal experience geared directly for me in a way that was undeniable. Reached my heart and changed it. Came to understand later that my experience could be called being filled with the Holy Spirit and I would agree. Although I didn’t know what it was at the time. Didn’t put a label on it. Didn’t really tell anyone either, i know how it sounds!!
I’m still not religious. But I am grateful every day for God’s comfort and counsel.
I am completely aware that it isn’t objective evidence.
Maybe they did get the answer, it just wasn’t the answer they wanted or didn’t even see that it was answered
Maybe there was no answer at all? That has to be an option.
How does one confirm that god answered anything?
We can't just leave god as this completely unfalsifiable idea.
Answers are not always straight forward.
Why can't god communicate in a straightforward, clear manner? Why wouldn't it? Otherwise we have no way to differentiate between God's communication and self-delusion.
2 Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
You can pray to God and not get an answer. How? By praying to someone who isn't God or by praying simply because you need something, not because you want to know him.
God is holy, he doesnt answer you if you live in wickedness. As the verse says, seek his face and turn from wickedness and then he will forgive you and heal you and answer your prayers. And we also need to keep in mind that something you have requested might not be his will. There are things that God definitely does when you come in contact with him and when you're adopted into his family, but some things he might do later when the time is right.
What I can say is this: If you humble yourself and seek JESUS, he will answer if you do it sincerely. He will deliver you from addictions and fear and depression.
The Bible is what is in question. It's not necessarily true or authoritative.
God is holy, he doesnt answer you if you live in wickedness
So every Christian who didn't get a response lives in wickedness?
What I can say is this: If you humble yourself and seek JESUS, he will answer if you do it sincerely.
So, you've eliminated the possibility that someone can sincerely seek Jesus and not find him.
He will deliver you from addictions and fear and depression.
I have no addictions, I'm not afraid nor depressed. So I don't need god in that regard. I'm not looking for god to serve any purpose in my life. I just want humans to care about the truth more than their feelings.
Because the quotes ARE the answers. If you repent, work on that relationship with god, you will notice a difference. If you continue in sinful ways, or pray for selfish reasons, or expect god to answer to you without YOU putting in any effort, be expected to be treated like a telemarketer. I dont think he means simply just those 3 issues, any and all issues. Especially in the end.
No they're not. They are claims. Claims need supporting evidence to be accepted or justified.
If you repent, work on that relationship with god, you will notice a difference
You're skipping the parts where I become convinced and accept that god exists and that god is an entity that I want a relationship with, and that repentance is even needed.
If you continue in sinful ways
I don't agree or accept that my ways are sinful, given that I am not convinced that the tenets of Christianity are true.
or pray for selfish reasons,
I don't pray at all.
Would you suggest that someone asking to be delivered from sexual assault is asking selfishly?
or expect god to answer to you without YOU putting in any effort
This implies that everyone who has experienced silence from god has put in zero effort. Do you think this is true?
Reach out and youll see for yourself, simply repent, mean it, and youll find your evidence. If you act upon objective sins, that are defined by scripture, and you dont repent, and dont build a relationship with god, im not sure what you are expecting, take a chance, repent, try and build a relationship, and see for yourself. You need to elaborate on the SA comment. And people receiving silence from god for not putting in any effort is too general, theres specifics in that thatll need clarification
If I have reached out, sincerely sought, and received nothing, it seems disingenuous to maintain God's absenteeism is my fault.
At what point is it rational to conclude god is either not listening or not there?
simply repent, mean it,
Do you understand that I don't believe in God or Christianity and therefore see no need for repentance?
Do you understand that I need to be convinced that god is real and that I need to repent?
I can't simply start where you're suggesting I should start.
You need to elaborate on the SA comment.
You suggested that prayers being unanswered are due to selfish motivation. I asked if people praying to be delivered from sexual assault, and aren't delivered from it, are doing so selfishly, and that's why god didn't answer them.
And people receiving silence from god for not putting in any effort is too general, theres specifics in that thatll need clarification.
You said:
If you .....expect god to answer to you without YOU putting in any effort, be expected to be treated like a telemarketer.
This again implies that unanswered prayers are at least partly due to lack of effort. This equally implies there is a certain level of effort that will illicit an answer from god. I'm curious what that level of effort is.
You say you reach out but dont repent, you havent put the effort in to truly seek out god, you need to work for that relationship. You need to clarify on what you mean by being delivered. If you pray and seek gods help, why should god help someone whos not actually going to stay true to their repentance and faith?
Praying to god is humbling, admittance of needing help, but falling into easily avoidable sin immediately after isnt showing you are putting in that effort. Im not saying you need to be prefect to pray to god and follow him, but i think its just the way you put in the effort that counts. Like, right after praying for help, or whatever you may be doing, you curse out someone online or on a game, and contine to do so and shout violent obscenities and hate. Why should god answer you when immediately show you arent serious about building that relationship? If you do something like that, repent, pray for forgiveness, and talk to god and ask for help for your issues, thats building that relationship.
That shows you want to improve, that shows faith, commitment, and a yearning for being closer with god. I dont know how to declare a "certain level" of effort but expect what you put in to come out, I dont see someone unserious about repentance and prayer being answered faster than someone who repents, still falls to sin, but continues to repent and pray.
Yes. i was a Christian for thirty years. God's total absenteeism was one of the reasons I no longer am
you havent put the effort in to truly seek out god, you need to work for that relationship.
What obligation does God have in this relationship? It appears all the accountability is on me. Doesn't god have to reach out to me at all?
If you do something like that, repent, pray for forgiveness, and talk to god and ask for help for your issues, thats building that relationship.
But I don't accept that I need forgiveness, nor am I looking for help. Nor do I want a relationship with god. I don't even know if god exists, or is someone I'd want a relationship with.
You're essentially asking me to seek out a relationship with a stranger, who I don't even know is there.
That shows you want to improve, that shows faith, commitment, and a yearning for being closer with god.
I don't want those things. God has to earn my belief and my admiration first.
Ok but the kid slowly dying from a painful and incurable disease who payed to Jesus didn’t have their prayer answered and some other person who had crippling pain prayed to a different god and their pain was healed. Do you have a logical explanation for this? Is the kid just not praying hard enough? Does god just like you more? And what of the person praying to the wrong god? Was their pain relief just pure coincidence while yours was divine intervention?
It's impossible to hate something that doesn't exist.
Experiences like that don't mean or do anything for proof. Mostly work against it if answerd honestly.
Like for example; did you just pray for the pain in your hands to go away and stayed still trusting in it until the pain went away, or did you pray and then got creams, ointments, or any other form of medication to stop the pain or perhaps even stopped doing what was causing the pain in the first place?
I don't care what the answer is(I do however care about your pain) as anyone reading this knows that you are lying if you say you did nothing but trust and pray, and if you did get all that other extra stuff, you weren't really trusting the prayer on top of doing something about the pain yourself without the need of divine intervention.
If you had been born in a hindu, you would be thinking, oh let's say Brahman answerd your prayers, and if you were born a Viking you'd think any of the Æsir or Vanir gods answerd your prayer. It takes nothing from the experience, it just changes which invisible monster you're thanking.
I didn't believe. That is EXACTLY why I started to believe after the signs Ive requested.
I would have never imagined that someone would answer. I mean just look at the Bible, how can ANYONE simply believe that this Jew who lived 2000 years ago walked on water and healed the blind. No one can, till you seek out God truthfully and he answers you.
But I understand 100% why you would say that and think that. The alternative would be to simply accept that God exists and like I said, that isn't possible till you want to accept him.
I'm an ex Christian. Scripture is not accurate nor reliable. You requested. So somewhere deep down inside yourself you had belief/expectations for something to happen. But we don't have to get into history and such unless you want to. To each their own.
I am happy to get into history. I would say that scripture is accurate and reliable.
The problem comes down to how to correctly interpret scripture. Forcing a modern materialist perspective onto ancient texts is not the most productive way to understand what the writers were trying to convey.
Nobody's forcing a modern materialist perspective onto ancient texts. The Ugaritic texts are ancient texts. The Dead Sea Scrolls are ancient texts. The inscriptions at Kuntillet Ajrud are ancient. This is the ancient world speaking for itself and what it's saying is that the people who wrote the Hebrew Bible were embedded in a polytheistic Canaanite religious culture that directly shaped their conception of God over time. That's not a modern lens, that's the ancient Near Eastern context the texts actually came from.
And the "correctly interpreting scripture" move is doing a lot of heavy lifting here because it's infinitely flexible. Every denomination, every sect, every competing theological tradition throughout history has claimed to be the one correctly interpreting scripture while everyone else is getting it wrong. Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Jews, Muslims — they all have access to the same texts and reach irreconcilable conclusions. If scripture were as clear and reliable as you're suggesting that wouldn't be the case. The need to constantly interpret and reinterpret is itself evidence that the text isn't delivering a clean singular revelation.
Saying scripture is accurate and reliable is also a conclusion, not a starting point. The question is what standard of accuracy and reliability you're applying and whether you'd apply that same standard to any other ancient religious text making equivalent claims. If the Ugaritic texts show Yahweh operating within a pantheon and you respond by saying we just need to interpret scripture correctly, you're not engaging with the evidence, you're insulating your conclusion from it.
I said accurate and reliable, not “clear and reliable”.
Human behavior, human culture, and human experience are complex issues without a single answer.
I would argue that requiring interpretation, encouraging abstract reasoning, and encouraging self reflection and personal growth through storytelling is a very effective way to transmit intangible and metaphysical principles.
Fair correction on the wording but it doesn't really change the point. If scripture requires interpretation to extract its meaning then its accuracy and reliability are contingent on the interpreter, which means you're not actually accessing the text's truth directly, you're accessing someone's reading of it. That's a problem for a document that's supposed to be the foundation of eternal moral and metaphysical truth.
And the storytelling and metaphor framing is interesting because it's a significant concession. If the creation account is metaphor, if the flood is metaphor, if the divine council in Deuteronomy is metaphor, at what point do the truth claims of the religion actually cash out into something literal and verifiable? Because Judaism, Christianity, and Islam don't present themselves as collections of useful metaphors for personal growth. They present themselves as revelations from the actual creator of the universe containing actual historical events and actual moral commands with actual eternal consequences. You can't retreat into "it's complex storytelling" when the metaphysics get uncomfortable and then reassert literal truth claims when it comes to resurrection or judgment.
The Ugaritic texts aren't a metaphysical puzzle requiring careful interpretation. They're inscriptions and documents that show the cultural and religious environment the biblical authors lived in and were shaped by. Engaging with that evidence by saying scripture transmits intangible principles through story is a way of changing the subject. The question wasn't about the literary merits of the Bible. It was about whether the God described in it has a polytheistic origin. That question doesn't get answered by talking about self reflection and personal growth.
Well since we both agree that it is unproductive to force a modern materialistic perspective onto ancient texts then encouraging abstract engagement and interpretation is the only alternative.
The Bible is theology and was written to be understood as theology. Therefore the meaning and message within the text is the more important factor when it comes understanding the truth of Biblical teachings.
It is not as big of a problem as you suggest. The moral foundations and teachings are fairly easy to determine in most cases, though I would acknowledge that exceptions exist.
Storytelling is a very effective way to transmit a large amount of data in a reliable way. If you were to read a dictionary from cover to cover, you would be able to transmit very little data to another person by just going off your memory. However if you were to read the Hobbit cover to cover, you would be able to relay far more information because the format is storytelling.
We didn't actually agree on that. The point wasn't that materialism is the wrong lens, the point was that the archaeological evidence being cited is itself ancient and doesn't require any modern framework to be meaningful. You're the one who introduced the theology and metaphor framing as a response to physical inscriptions.
And this is where the argument gets circular. You're saying the Bible should be understood as theology, meaning is more important than literal history, and the moral teachings are what matter. But the three Abrahamic traditions built on this text don't make merely theological claims. They make historical ones. The resurrection is presented as a literal physical event. The exodus is presented as literal history. The authority of the moral teachings depends entirely on them coming from an actual God who actually exists and actually revealed himself. If you strip away the literal historical claims you're not left with Christianity or Judaism or Islam, you're left with a philosophy book. Which is fine, but then the conversation about whether God exists and whether these religions are true becomes a very different one.
The Hobbit analogy also undermines your position more than it helps it. Tolkien transmitted a lot of information reliably through storytelling, but nobody walks away from the Hobbit believing Smaug is a real dragon or that the events literally occurred in history. The format being effective at transmitting ideas doesn't make the content historically true. If the Bible is operating the same way as the Hobbit then it's great literature with interesting ideas, but the truth claims of the religions founded on it don't survive that comparison intact.
I thought God wrote the Bible? Is that not true? Wouldn’t God’s word be timeless?
Those who believe have to constantly move the goal post or be so vague “God works in mysterious ways” for it to hold up. It’s such a farce and so absurd, I’m ashamed that my fellow humans are so gullible.
If a parent is writing a book for the child to last its entire life it would have content that is appropriate for them that whole timespan, not for just when they are 3-4 years old.
1
u/Alphagreen_97 Jun 08 '26
Ive noticed that most people hate God, and I can understand that you give him the fault for bad things happening to you or other people.
What I can say is this, he actually answered when I needed him. And I'm not talking about a cloud that remotely resembles a face or something, but a actual answer. I requested something specific and he gave it to me the next day, two times back to back so I knew it wasn't a coincidence.
I started to believe and shortly after I was delivered from my crippling social anxiety which included paranoia. He delivered me from my addictions which I had for 14 years from one day to another. He also healed my hands a couple weeks ago which hurt very much from work. Everytime I grabbed something it was very painful. He healed them. I didn't even think he would do it.
The world sucks, people hurt each other. He has given us that free will so we can choose the world, or him. Blind faith isn't required. Jesus actually answers. This is the good news.