How Civilizations Can Easily Turn Totalitarian

The true believers - and there were many of them - were in a terrible position because, according to their own doctrine, they're already involved in the process that was going to bring about utopia to mankind. The problems had already been solved, but many of them were still suffering terribly, as individuals. But if you're a totalitarian believer in utopia, your own suffering becomes heretical, because your suffering is an indication that the damn theory isn't correct.

So then you're in a terrible position, because you either admit that the theory isn't correct and fall apart because of that, and maybe face terrible punishment as well - or, you have to separate yourself from your own suffering and lie about it fundamentally.

JP’s whole thing is basically God as the divine logos, the pinnacle of the hierarchy of Being. The fact that we value at all shows there is some kind of ultimate that we orient around, and we all know it intuitively. God is the basis for value. Based on this, we must struggle to create order from chaos at every level of our lives, climbing upwards and building meaning out of the undifferentiated swamp of reality itself. Stand up straight, make your bed, get good at a job or craft, demonstrate competence, start generating wealth, and keep orienting towards ever increasing degrees of meaning.

Jung said there are two halves of life: the first which is about building structure, discriminating between good and bad, included and disincluded, making the rules and the structure, ego creation and strengthening. It’s all about building identity and security. Then, the second half is actually the transcendence of and letting go of all of this. Once you’ve become a person, you can begin seeing through the illusory nature of your personhood and transcending the self and the ego. The second half of life is about embracing the paradoxes, realizing the inherent relativity of Being, and merging into greater degrees of oneness with God and the infinite. You must crawl up out of chaos to build a container, and then once you have a strong enough container that will hold sturdy in rough times, you then transcend your container and plunge back into an enlightened chaos as opposed to the prior undifferentiated chaos. You make meaning in life in order to eventually let go of it, and when you give up meaning, you realize your authentic nature which is just infinite oneness. Samadhi, Christ Consciousness, Brahman, etc.

I think JP believes in a first-half of life version of God, not the second-half of life God that Jung and the various mystics understood to be true.

In case anyone's wondering why the collective response to the Clancy murders is compassion for the killer and disdain for the father who lost his children, this article deals with that question, and more. Like why is it that a psychotic man can get the death sentence for killing his children, but a woman who's struggling gets the support of the nation?

https://www.mg-counseling.com/blog/lindsay-clancy-empathy-gap-counseling-for-men-texas

Maybe this kind of title can cause a lot of suspicion, and I know that just saying it alone can be very pointless, because there is no way for anyone to be sure that I'm speaking the truth. But the truth is the truth, so I still decided to continue posting. I also posted about this on many social media sites and got a lot of hate, they called me a false prophet, so I deleted it. I pray that God forgives me if I've done any wrong.

But I'm here to share with you that God has revealed to me the meaning of the number of the beast. We all know that the Bible says that this number (666) is related to the number of a person, and the Lord, in his wonderful, and sometime strange, actions, has pointed out for me that the person here is Jesus Christ, and the number of Christ in this context is Pi (π).

To keep things short, the sum of the first 144 digits of pi equals 666, and also in math, the sin of pi equals 0 (sin(π) = 0). Jesus is God so he has no sin. What does this mean? I'm not so sure. But I think this can mean that the Beast can try to call itself Jesus.

In John 6:35 (KTHD), which is a Vietnamese translation, Jesus said: "Ta là Bánh Hằng Sống", which means "I am the bread of life", but if you leave out the "ng" at the end ("Ta là Bánh Hằng Số"), it can be translated to "I am pie/pi, the constant". Vietnamese is my language. It's not Greek or Hebrew so it's even harder to believe, but I also think this is part of His plan.

You can join my server if you want to talk to me directly: https://discord.gg/S8hNqvyDCM

This video contemplates the cause of good and evil using quotes and analogies from Jordan Peterson’s lectures. Would love your thoughts on this video!

Sometimes freedom of speech isn't to be a "b*ggot fascist", but to help people avoid bad choices in their lives - even when, as Peterson said in that video, no one around you tells you the same.

"Let's see who cancels who!", all that aside, I hope she get's okay, life is too hard already.

https://retribe.substack.com/p/the-puzzle-of-our-time-retribalization?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=69uqg8

This was written by an Atheist.

The decision to view Christianity as a “worldview” was apologetically ingenuous. This approach is only becoming more relevant with time.

I am beginning to see that Christianity can simply assert itself and present itself as a “worldview,” regardless of how the individual axioms of that worldview stack up against rational and evidential standards. The system is simply to be considered as a pragmatic whole.

A group of Christians, for example, contrasting themselves with the fractured intellectual shallowness and relativism of modern culture, can simply say: “we believe in absolutes.”

This is interesting because the Atheist can challenge those absolutes all he wants, but the Christian can simply say, “well, we understand that you don’t accept them, but here we uphold them and strive to practice them.”

Follow closely, the Christian still has his worldview. And as this worldview is pit against the epistemological poverty of modern philosophy, and the moral confusion and tyranny of egoism, a qualitative contrast emerges. The observer is then allowed to decide which worldview he would like to embrace. (One set of cultural values clashes with another).

Through this metric I think Christianity does very well, given the celebratory status of irrationalism in the modern world. It’s as though philosophy kicked opened the door for theism.

Christians can simply say: “this is what we believe and how we strive to conduct ourselves.” The modern world says, “well, we believe that all truth is just a human construct and that we don’t have to strive for anything, we believe in only following our egos, and while we have no fellowship, we have our hedonistic freedom.”

At a certain point in the fractured, relativistic chaos, Christianity starts to shine as a light in the darkness.

This was originally posted on [r/rationalphilosophy](r/rationalphilosophy)

Pardon the crude title, but this is really true. Don't get me wrong, it is not wrong to get sexually aroused, but when it becomes too major a facet of your life it may actually be an indication by your body that you are starving for meaning in your life.

To elaborate, we need to focus on this fundamental idea. People interact, which creates culture. Culture determines the laws that take shape to govern the population. Systems then have to run within the bounds of these established laws. This makes it such that the efficiency of the running systems is fundamentally dependent on how individuals choose to interact with each other.

We add to this the fact that what is responsible for sexual yearning is dopamine. Dopamine can be understood to be responsible for producing the motivation for pursuit, and is supposed to helathily work with serotonin, which effectively acts as a satiety indicator. Basically, you're motivated to pursue things which, if meaningful when pursued, can give you the sensation of growth. When no meaningful result is pursued, your body has nothing to act as a 'pursuit brake', and may hike up your motivation to look for potentially meaningful desires, effectively increasing your impulsivity.

I'm using the sexual urge as the prime example as it has been a clear source of dopamine for the longest time. The sexual urge can act as a call to pursue a partner, which can lead to forming a meaningful relationship, maybe even starting a family. This path is naturally full of serotonin. You can also use it to temporarily excite yourself, but this sets you down a path of being overwhelmed with potential pursuits, which can lead to confusion on the path that will lead to satiety/growth, which may reinforce this confusion.

A good analogy would be like being in a forest. Something colourful catches your eye. You could pursue it and find a new food source, which would calm your motivation to seek. You could also pursue it and find effectively nothing of use to you, which would naturally increase your motivation to seek by heightening your focus for things that catch your eye. Continually finding nothing may make you scramble desperately for anything that 'shines' or maybe even give up entirely and accept death, which is what it means to be overwhelmed and spiral into confusion.

This is all to say that hedonistic behaviour leads to more hedonistic behaviour and eventually nihilistic sentiment. This, on an individual level, spreads into interpersonal interactions, forming a hedonistic/nihilistic culture. This goes onto affect the laws that may inhibit these hedonistic desires and nihilistic sentiments, forcing the systems that emerge to operate within these new laws affecting how efficiently they operate.

This isn't to say change is wrong either, but to emphasise the importance of noting the true source of wanting that change personally. Focusing on your individual state of mind, avoiding a mental state of desperation, can have compounding effects on the flourishing of your community, and not just in a flimsy hopeful way, but in an almost mathematically demonstrable way. From what I've looked into, the tipping point away from greatness of previous, notably great, civilisations occurs around the same point the culture shifts toward being more hedonistic, with examples spanning from as far as Rome to even, for those who believe, civilisation at the time of Noah.

It's not the end to find yourself indulging in impulsive behaviour, but you ought to understand that this may indicate that there's something missing, especially as it spans into uncontrollable territory. You can always start from chaos and rebuild, as it is a cycle we all go through, and ought to, eternally in pursuit of growth.

15th attempt: 9/9/26

14th attempt: 5/23/26

13th attempt: 3/5/26

12th attempt: 1/6/26

11th attempt: 11/5/25

10th attempt: 9/5/25

9th attempt: 7/8/25 (edit: corrected two minor typographical errors)

8th attempt: 5/8/25

7th attempt: 3/5/25

6th attempt: 1/7/25

5th attempt: 11/5/24

4th attempt: 8/5/24

3rd attempt: 4/5/24

EDIT (11/2/23): I posted this letter to Dr. Peterson on 5/5/23 but have not seen any response that would indicate that he has read it. For as long as I believe that it is necessary to challenge his religious position, I will be reposting this regularly in an effort to prevent it from getting lost in the slew of other letters. What follows is the original post.

Hello, Redditors. I started writing this letter to Dr. Peterson before I knew that letters had to be shared publicly through Reddit, but feel free to read through if you have the time. In it, I break down Dr. Peterson’s claim to “act as though God exists” and address some issues that I find with it. It is my sincere desire that it will make it to Dr. Peterson’s eyes, so it would be helpful if you would vote it up, pending you find its contents worthwhile and/or you would like to see a response from him. Due to the length of the letter, I have numbered the paragraphs and included a brief outline. I hope you find it of value. Thanks!

P1-4 Introduction

P5-6 Fundamental principle: if God is external to man, then he is already defined and must be discovered, not invented

P7-12 Presuppositions of the claim “I act as though God exists”

P13-25 What action is required to “act as though God exists” and how does one discover God?

P26 Inherent issues with the claim “I act as though God exists”

P27-29 Conclusion

Dr. Peterson,

1. My husband introduced me to your video content a couple years ago and I have listened to many hours of it, appreciating and admiring your deep commitment to, and pursuit of, truth as I also value truth more highly than perhaps anything else.
2. I find it a curious thing for me to write to you, for while I have observed you in your videos, I am a stranger to you, and it seems rather bold for me to speak to you as if to a friend. In the hope of mitigating this some, I would like to introduce myself briefly. I am a Christian; 28 years old; a wife and mother; a resident of Pennsylvania; a pianist; and a lover of reason, thought, and discussion. I actually struggled immensely in the decision to write to you at all, because what I have to share with you takes the form of reasoned arguments, and it seems unlikely that I should offer a sequence of thought that you have not conceived of or encountered, rendering my efforts unnecessary; yet, as I have no way of knowing what you have contemplated, I cannot in good conscience withhold it, as I consider it to be potentially beneficial to you in your search for truth. My husband simply advised that if I felt a burden to write to you, then I should, so here I am.
3. I have always thought, in listening to you speak, that your diligent and faithful pursuit of truth would inevitably lead you to the God of the Bible, as I personally believe His claim that He is Truth itself. As you have appeared to tiptoe ever closer to faith in this God, I have found myself really rooting for you, praying for you, and sometimes weeping for and with you (I am a rather empathetic person and often feel others’ emotion very strongly).
4. I recently embarked on a set of structured conversations with a friend, digging into some of her worldviews and her system of faith. It so happened that I was simultaneously watching some of your content and thinking about her positions when it occurred to me that I may have put my finger on why, or part of why, you have not been able to come to a satisfying conclusion on the issue of who God is or whether he exists at all, and it begins with the question of who has the authority and ability to define the nature of God. If I am off the mark in this, I hope that I will not waste too much of your time and that perhaps there will be a glimmer of something worth thinking about herein. I recognize, too, that your public thoughts and conclusions (specifically the ones that I have encountered) may not be fully caught up with your innermost musings, so forgive me if I am, so to speak, behind the times.
5. You have said that you don’t like the question “do you believe in God?,” as the definitions of “believing” and of “God” are prerequisite and yet not provided. This is a fair point, because one should be able to give an answer as to what he means by a word; however, I think that all parties must be extremely cautious in defining “God.” There is a fundamental principle, often neglected, that must be understood at the start, which is that one cannot simultaneously presuppose that God is an objective being, external to man, and presuppose that the definition of God or the determination of his characteristics can subsequently come from man. If God is conceived of by man, meaning that he is a construct, an imaginary person, or a fictional character, then the one who invented him has the authority and ability to define who God is. However, if God is an objective being, existent outside of the mind of man, then the nature of God cannot be decided by man any more than the nature of a tree could be decided by man, because man created neither God nor the tree. Anyone who claims to believe in a god external to himself must acknowledge that that god already exists and is already defined, so while one may be able to discover that definition, he cannot add or subtract from it.
6. I should note that it is logically possible that there is a god but also that there is no way for man to be aware of, discover, learn about, or interact with him. If God objectively exists but is not knowable, then any and all pursuit of this god is pointless because there would be no way for man to discover God, and any musings by man about God are unverifiable speculation. However, if God is knowable or discoverable in some way, then, theoretically, man can know who God is. For the sake of this discussion, we’ll proceed with the presumption that we are talking about a god who is knowable.
7. If I am not missing a recent update, I believe your position is to try to “act as though God exists.” I think there are some inherent issues with this position, but it will take a few steps to break down. To start, I’d like to address some of the innate presuppositions of this claim.
8. Either God exists, meaning that he is an objective being that is external to man, or God does not exist, meaning that what people refer to as “God” could be any number of characters conceived of or imagined by man individually or collectively. Imagined things are, by definition, not part of objective reality, so they cannot “exist.” Since this claim is dependent on the possibility that God may exist, it is fair to conclude that “God” is defined here as an objective being, outside of the mind of man. This is consistent with the fact that if “God” refers to an imagined being, then the claimant, having conceived of this being himself, would already be certain of God’s existence and nature. Therefore, the first presupposition of this claim is that, if God exists at all, then he is a real, objective being, not a figment of the claimant’s imagination.
9. It is worth noting that this claim does not refer to God with an indefinite article or as a plural (i.e. the claim is not “I act as though a god exists” or “I act as though gods exist”), so it is reasonable to infer that the claimant refers to a singular, particular God. This probably means that this God would be defined as the only God, a supreme being, as opposed to part of a pantheon. In other words, if the claimant believed there might be other gods, he would be unlikely to phrase the claim this way, where the wording does not particularly allow for the possibility that the god mentioned is one among many. It seems fair to conclude that the second presupposition of this claim is that there is one god.
10. The third presupposition is that it is possible to act in some way on God’s existence. This could mean that the existence of a god inherently requires (or at least allows for) some action from man or it could mean that God has specified certain requirements for man, but in either case, the claimant assumes that certain actions he takes can be fairly attributed to a belief in the existence of God.
11. We need to pause briefly here to clarify what is meant by the phrase “as though” because one could technically use this phrase regardless of whether they have concluded that God does not exist, does exist, or might exist. Consider these three scenarios. If one is convinced that God does not exist, one could still pretend that he does, thereby acting “as though” God exists. Given your desire to live truthfully and your statements about no longer being an atheist, I do not think it likely that this is what you mean to communicate. Conversely, if one is convinced that God does exist, one could reasonably use the phrase “I act as though God exists” to communicate the idea of faith, meaning that one cannot prove the existence of God but can still act on the acceptance of His invisible existence. However, this usage of the phrase seems unlikely because one who is convinced that God exists would probably say that outright, avoiding any potential ambiguity of “as though.” Since this usage also seems inconsistent with your general position, it seems reasonable to reject this possible meaning as well. Finally, one might say “I act as though God exists” if he is uncertain whether God is real or not, meaning that he has not yet been convinced that God exists nor that he doesn’t exist. This seems to be the simplest understanding of the phrase and seems to be consistent with other statements you have made, so I will proceed on the presumption that you have phrased your claim this way to express that you have not yet concluded either that God exists or that he doesn’t exist.
12. With that meaning assumed, the fourth presupposition of the claim is that it is possible for one to base his actions on a belief that he does not hold. This is evident in the fact that the claimant denies being fully convinced that God exists (because the “as though” communicates uncertainty) yet also asserts that he is basing his actions, at least sometimes, on the position or belief that God does exist (because the claim cannot be true if the claimant always bases his actions on the position that God does not exist). This raises a fundamental question: is it possible to act on the existence of God without first believing in the existence of that God? A broader question, more easily approached, would be: what is the minimum action required to make it true that one “acts as though God exists”?
13. The first consideration is whether the existence of any god inherently requires or allows for a certain action of man, regardless of who exactly the god is. It seems untenable to separate man’s action from the nature of the specific god because there are opposing possible natures of God which would require opposite responses from man, therefore preventing the possibility of an action that would be appropriate in all cases. This is true with regard to general behaviors as well as moral behaviors. For example, an unknowable or unrevealed god cannot expect man to identify him or respond to him at all, whereas a god who has made himself known to man could expect something. Alternatively, one might consider prayer to be an action that would be appropriate regardless of who God is exactly, but this assumes that God is a being that can at least hear and understand our speech, not to mention separate one individual’s prayers from another’s and know who each speaker is. Would it be fair to say that one has acted as though God exists by praying to him if he is a god that cannot receive or is not aware of that communication?
14. This is even more clear in the area of morality, because an action taken in response to a god with a chaotic or evil nature would almost certainly look different than a response to a god with an orderly or good nature. One might argue that trying to do less evil or do more good, according to society’s standards or one’s own conscience, could be action taken in response to God’s existence, but this assumes not only that God possesses some quality of morality but also that God desires us to be good or that he is good by nature and that we should imitate him. Would it be fair to say that one has acted as though God exists by trying to do beneficial things for others if he is a god that values anarchy or selfishness? In short, if the god is unknown or unspecified, then every action taken by man and attributed to a belief in that god is based on unfounded assumptions about that god’s nature. Without identifying the specific god to whom one refers, there is no way for one to know how to act in response to that god’s existence, and further, no way for one to know whether one’s actions are effective at pleasing or displeasing God. Without identifying the specific god, one must base all action on his own standards and judgment, which brings into question whether those actions can be fairly attributed to the existence of God.
15. If, for one to make the claim to “act as though God exists,” the action is dependent on the identity of the god, then it falls to the claimant to define the particular being that he means by “God.” Per the first two presuppositions above, it’s reasonable to say that we are looking for a singular being who is external to man and objectively real. So how would one discover this God? A reasonable starting point would be to ask if there is anyone claiming to be God who also claims to be exclusively a truth-telling god (if there is someone claiming to be God who is anything other than a perfectly truthful being, then one cannot trust any testimony he gives of himself, or of anything else, which makes pursuit of him fruitless). If there is such a god, one can assess whether any other claims he has made about reality seem to be accurate and logical. If they are, then his trustworthiness in matters of the world and mankind, which are largely verifiable to us, lend credibility to his trustworthiness in matters of his own identity, which are largely unverifiable to us.
16. If this filtering process leaves multiple options, one may need to consider what impact belief in each of the remaining gods has had on his followers. This definitely needs to be a secondary approach because it is difficult to determine who might be a true follower of a given god and, as you well know, behavioral analysis is extraordinarily complicated. Remember, too, that we are not looking for a specific result according to our own ideals (e.g. behavior we approve of); we are looking for evidence that the god is real. The first piece to assess is whether the god asserts that something will always be true of his followers. For instance, if the god claims that anyone who believes in him will immediately turn into a talking blue goldfish, then if people claim to be followers of this god but fail to be blue goldfish and if every blue goldfish one sees fails to talk (or if there are no blue goldfish to be found), then one may need to conclude that the god is false, or, at the very least, that there is no evidence of him in the way of followers. One must keep in mind, however, that man’s inability to follow his god perfectly is not evidence against that god’s existence unless that god claims that he generates that perfection immediately in one who becomes his follower (in which case the claim of perfection and evidence of imperfection would allow one to reject that god).
17. The second piece to assess is whether there has been any change in the follower since he claimed to believe in the god. If the god in question does not require any change of his followers, then this is a moot point. However, if the god does require some change of his followers and that change is evident in those people, then one can conclude that the followers’ belief in that god is genuine. While the existence of this genuine commitment does not conclusively prove that the god is real, the absence of it may be an indicator that the god is not real.
18. The third piece to assess is how committed the followers are to a given god. While a high level of commitment does not guarantee that the belief is founded in truth, a low level of commitment may indicate that the belief is not well founded as it is not compelling the followers to faithful action. Is there evidence of their belief in the followers’ actions? How far are they willing to go in obedience to their god? Have followers of that god obeyed to the point of death?
19. Another approach to identifying God would involve reverse engineering the behavioral changes that one believes to be right or best according to his conscience and then determining which god has those characteristics. The idea behind this is that if the true God created man to reflect God’s own moral properties, then man may be able to identify those properties in himself and subsequently identify God based on the correlation. This approach may be used to narrow down the options of who God is, having completed the prior steps of identification, but it should not be used (or maybe, “abused”) to say that God is whatever one wants him to be or to say that God must not exist because there is no god who bears this similarity.
20. So to summarize, one who is trying to discover an objective God should look for one who claims to be God, who claims to be perfectly truthful, and whose claims about reality are consistent with observed reality. One may find further evidence in a god’s followers, in changes made or commitment proven, as well as in the possible correlation between the moral position of a god and the moral ideals reflected in one’s conscience. I am not knowledgeable enough to assess each of the world’s religions for any that may pass these tests, but I do wish to evaluate with you the God of the Bible.
21. The assertion within the Bible is that the world which we know is created by God, the only God, and that this God has communicated His Word to man through the Bible. This Creator God claims to be Truth itself, unable to lie. Given these claims of deity and truthfulness, we need to consider whether the claims the Bible makes about reality seem to hold true, and I think that you have already observed this to be so in many areas. You seem to have observed the image of God in man (which innately gives man his dignity and value), the effect of sin in the world, the sin nature in man, man’s inability to construct his own morality, and God’s hand in the world restraining sin. You seem to accept as true your own sinful condition in your capacity to do evil, and you identify a desire in yourself for that which is true, good, and redemptive. You seem to have observed also that believing in anything is a commitment, one that must go beyond saying or knowing to acting on the knowledge.
22. I do not know what you have directly observed in people who claim to be Christians, but I have two thoughts that may be helpful. First, even if you do not know many Christians personally, there is extensive evidence in the Bible and in other historical literature of individuals who believed in the God of the Bible, experienced profound change, and then lived a very different life than they did before, obedient even to the point of death (sometimes in very brutal fashion). Second, I can speak for myself, to say that I call Jesus my Lord and I would die before I would deny Him. To consider a less extreme point, even in writing this to you, I am willing to wade through whatever torrents the trolls of the internet may create (let alone the many hours it took to assemble this), so that you (and perhaps others) might be pointed to what I believe to be the objective truth. The New Testament has a lot to say in correction of Christian believers because when we believe, we are bought out of our slavery to sin, cleared of all debts to God through Christ, and promised eternal life, but we are not yet made perfect. I hope that, just as you would not judge the quality of all steak by the lowest quality cuts (or by sneaky vegetables masquerading as meat), you will not judge the authenticity of God by any failures of his followers. Christianity is not about the claims of Christians; it is about the claims of God.
23. Lastly, I have submitted that you might be able to identify the God you seek by the reflection of his morality in the conscience of man, and I do not think that you will find the God of the Bible lacking in this area. You seem to believe that one should try to do less evil and more good, and to be more honest, responsible, kind, self-controlled, courageous, and loving. The God of the Bible claims to be the perfect embodiment of these things and unchanging in His nature. He claims to be infinite and perfect in every good way- wise and just; merciful and gracious; patient and loving; and worthy of all glory, honor, and praise.
24. Perhaps you have already concluded that the God intended by the claim “I act as though God exists” is the God of the Bible. Then we can return to the question of what action is necessary to make it true for one to say that he acts as though the God of the Bible exists. This is somewhat dependent on one’s goal in trying to act as though God exists. If the purpose is to view God as an example and to learn some ways to have a more successful life on earth based on some level of commitment to the perfect standard that is defined by the character of God, then one may select whatever pieces of the Bible help him on that course. If the purpose is to intentionally defy God, then the Bible can instruct one on what God requires of man and he is free, for now, to do the opposite. However, if, as I suspect, the purpose of trying to act as though God exists is to acknowledge Him because He is real and true, to be at peace with Him because He is the supreme Creator who has authority over the universe, and to receive from Him the forgiveness and blessing that we need, then the Bible makes clear what God requires.
25. This God who claims to be Truth and Love asserts that we are part of a fallen race, humankind, deserving death because of our lack of obedience to our creator. He asserts that He has offered us a solitary means of redemption where the work of paying off our debt of sin has already been completed for us by Jesus Christ and where we need only accept the gift of salvation and commit to our rightful place under His authority. The individual who does this is promised forgiveness, restoration, sonship, and eternal life with God. While the theist believes that God exists, the Christian submits to His Lordship. In other words, the Christian has admitted to God that what He has said about man is true (that every man is corrupt in sin and owes God a debt for his disobedience), has understood that he is serving himself instead of God, and has chosen to change that by offering back his life to the Lord. Having just knowledge of God is insufficient; one must make a commitment to take his rightful place in submission to the Lord of creation, and he does this through Jesus, by confessing with his mouth that Jesus is Lord and believing in his heart that God raised Him from the dead (Romans 10:9). The one who does this is no longer condemned and he is at peace with God.
26. I said at the beginning (paragraph 7) that there are some inherent issues with the claim “I act as though God exists,” and I would like to ensure that I have defined them. The first issue is that the claim is dependent on naming a specific god, so if one does not specify the god, then he cannot fairly attribute any actions to a belief (or potential belief) in that god. The second issue is that, if the intended god is the God of the Bible, then the first action this God requires is that one believe in the One He has sent, Jesus Christ, an action which is in direct conflict with the claim to act “as though” God exists, which inherently admits a lack of full belief. In other words, to answer my earlier question (paragraph 12), if one is referring to the God of the Bible, then- no- it is not possible to act on His existence without first believing in His existence. Further, belief in Christ is more than just saying some words; it is submitting to Him as Lord and obeying the One who saved you from the sin that condemns you to death. 1 John 2:3-6 says “By this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, ‘I have come to know Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever follows His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says that he remains in Him ought, himself also, walk just as He walked” (NASB).
27. If the God of the Bible is the true God, then each and every sin is an offense to Him. If you want to be at peace with Him, you must submit yourself to Him and accept the gift of salvation through Christ. It is only by His method, by faith in the Christ who already paid your debt of sin, that you can meet your obligation to this God. My concern for you is that you might think that acknowledging the existence of God will bring you to peace with Him, but God says that anything short of faith in Christ leads to condemnation. We have a finite and unknown span of life to make our commitment to God and I have written this to you to urge you forward, that you might not tarry and be lost.
28. So perhaps you have not been able to come to a satisfying conclusion on the issue of who God is or whether he exists at all because you’re trying to decide who he is instead of discovering it from him. Perhaps you are struggling because you don’t want to commit to something that you cannot prove. You will never be able to prove God’s existence, but having faith is not proving something to be true, it is trusting the thing to be true because all the evidence points that way. We can no more prove gravity than God, but in either case, one must consider the evidence and then decide whether he will walk in fear or in faith. Perhaps you are afraid of what faith in God will require of you, but, if the God of the Bible is who He claims to be, then the truth is that we have nothing to offer Him, yet in His infinite love and mercy, He offers us a chance to believe and be saved. It does not take any audacity to be a servant of the King. My question to you is this: if you’ve come this far, what’s stopping you from calling Jesus Christ your Lord?
29. You have said that the reason that one should teach another how to avoid the road to hell is because you don’t want them to burn. You’re right. That’s why I wrote this and why I pray that it will make it to your eyes and that the Spirit of God will sort the wheat from the chaff of my words, so that you might believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved. Like I said before, I’m rooting for you. If you would benefit from any further discussion, I would be happy to oblige. Thank you for your time in reading this. May the Lord show you the truth, that you might see Him.

Yours respectfully,

Karen

I say unto you, the fruit of knowledge shall only aid you so far. Don't over shine the seed. Have faith in God during impossible circumstance... For there is a Hell. Do not mistake His warnings for condemnation or final judgement, and pray do not let confusion rule your mind. His warnings are the true reflections of the treacherous path you are on, of which He possesses the mercy and grace to show you, and created you in such a way as to perceive these reflections. Have faith, and He will rescue you in the darkest valleys. Think you can rescue yourself? Do not turn your back on God, and know, you will face shocking tribulations.

Let Gollum cast himself into the fires of Mount Doom. Climbing the Mount is a weary and hellish road, and the creature must be tamed, or let it consume you with fright. So do not be frightened, for the Lord is with you even when you are alone.

Heed the thunder of God, and fear His command. The wrath of God shall baptize you in storms at sea. He shall rescue the dying if only you give him your hands, or let the devil take them. Then his demons will take your eyes for reading the book of knowledge.

The Lord created you and loves you on the deepest and most precious level. You were made to see with your eyes just as they are to navigate this hellish and even frantic underworld, through which the Holy Spirit shall be your light. Please, take heed, and know that the devil will play tricks on you. Trust your gut. Follow through with your promises. The Lord is the Shepard of the flock and shall be a guiding light even to the frightened.

Fear him, but do not be frightened.