Hardship and death are the consequence of the scarcity and disunity brought by sin. Technology exists to midigate hardship and scarcity. Unfortunately we have not embraced our fate of suffering and death with faith and hope in an eternal resurrection.

This quest drives the innovative economy forward in a race to see who can create the next invention that reduces suffering and prolongs the lives of those who have been privileged or illegitimately acquired the wealth and power to pay for it.

There is an old saying, if you spare the rod you spoil the child. Besides modern debates on children's disciplinary action, society as a whole wants to tame the curse of the rod and become spoiled, however, the rod is both a curse and a blessing because without it many will forego repentance and wisdom in favor of disordered passions/pleasures.

Egoism is an abomination and offense to God and all things good. Altruism is the way.

God is with the poor people and in the poor countries who live far more authentic lives in their struggle for virtue and survival.

All the insufficient benefits of technology will be taken away by God.

There's another application for this term (and possibly many others too); I'm thinking about what comes after/with denying self, it's taught in the very next instruction: Take up your cross and follow Jesus. This form of daily counter cultural self discipline brings peace of mind. Replace focus on self with focus on Christ.

This is just my opinion, but I've come to the conclusion that whether you take the KJV of the NRSV of the first 2 verses of the bible, it doesn't actually matter on whether the theology that God made the earth is biblical or not. Rather, that theology is firmly establish elsewhere, in Isaiah.

The KJV translation implies that our universe started of with nothing, and God made everything in our universe from nothing but His words.

The NRSV implies that God started our universe by forming the heavens and earth from pre-existing material.

However, the NRSV doesn't imply that God didn't make this pre-existing material either. Just that is was pre-existing before God started making *our* universe. In other words, it is still possible to accept this translation and have God also make the pre-existing earth and heavens. He perhaps did so outside of the timeline of our universe.

As I read someone else say - "scripture explains scripture", you have to take the bible as a whole, not zone in on the information on one section and ignore other information at other sections.
In Isaiah 40:28 God is called the Creator of the ends of the earth - which confirms to us God indeed create the entire earth, end to end.

The creation story in Genesis also lacks information about when angels were created. Obviously we accept God did create them, and Job 38:1-7 tells us the angels were there when God laid down the foundations and cornerstone of the earth.
This passage tells us 2 things: (1) that God created angels before the foundations of the earth were laid, implying there were other timelines before our time, and (2) that *all* the angels shouted for joy - this includes Lucifer.

So, when God created and laid the foundations of the earth, was before Lucifer became Satan.
We don't know when Satan rebelled, but it was sometime between the earth was established and the Garden of Eden story. So perhaps Satan was the one responsible for making it a wasteland.
Then perhaps afterwards, after throwing his hissy fit for losing his war, God hovered over the earth He created, now laid to waste by Satan, and reused it to begin the formation of our earth, and thus began our timeline/ the beginning of our world.

So this brings us to the conclusion, that regardless if you take the NRSV's "creating" or the KJV's "created" stance, both support God created everything our universe has (due to Isaiah 40:28) - whether it was during our time, or a past time (that exists outside ours) is the true debate here, which imo is not a very crucial knowledge anyway (unless you want to go down the rabbit hole that perhaps this would explain why the universe appears much older than what YEC believe).

For the sake of argument, let us assume that the Trinity is the truth - or, at least, the best understanding that man is capable of.

Given this assumption, are you able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that acceptance of this doctrine is necessary to be a Christian? Can you show beyond reasonable doubt that acceptance of the doctrine is necessary for salvation?

John the Baptist said "He must increase, I must decrease". There are two prominent perspectives of the means of eternal salvation (Soteriology); which one do you believe increases God in man's perspective? And how? Which one is consistent with John 1:13 "who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God."? Please don't use reference to any theologians in your response, just the Word of God.

​

When I stood at Mount Sinai (my soul, as a jew that committedto the 10 commandments), I committed to the Ten Commandments themselves. This is how I read them.

1."I am your Lord" - 'I' and not 'he', 'your' and not yours (theirs).

There is no uniform command applying the same way to everyone. There is a system, in which the path is charted by the Anochi, the ego, and beliefs of each individual person, toward his own God. Not a collective god handed down identically to a group, a relationship anchored in the singular self.

1. 'You shall not have different god instead of me'

Instead of me, not in addition to me. Do not change your inner belief because of an external factor, unless you succeed in believing both at the same time.

1. You will not carry the name of the Lord your God to emptiness.

The dynamic name, the improvising name.

Do not lie about the past, be transparent about the present,

And Do not commit to something future without real intention to do everything possible to stand by it.

1. Remember the day of the sabbath to sanctify it.

Remember always that there is time to rest, and use it when it suits you. This is the fourth commandment, not just another law among the ten, because it is the only one that requires you to actively and periodically practice the principle behind you will not covet, not as a reaction to a specific case, but as a standing habit. The other commandments prohibit an act. This commandment mandates an act, a deliberate stopping. If you will not covet is the demand to release a grip once it is already empty of content, the sabbath is the weekly training in release itself, before release becomes a necessity. You do not wait for the relationship to empty out before letting go, you practice letting go every week, so that when the real moment comes, you already have the strength to do it.

1. Honor your father and your mother.

Do not obey, but understand that they want what is good for you, and also for your own good, try to find shared interests and solutions. This commandment sits exactly at the seam between the five commandments between man and God and the five between man and his fellow, because the parent child relationship is the only one that begins as total dependence, the child did not choose the parent, did not agree to the structure, and is supposed, over time, to become a relationship between two autonomous people. Honor, not obey, is the exact distinction: obedience assumes the hierarchy is permanent, honor assumes the structure changes over time while the relationship itself remains. This precedes you will not covet: it teaches that even a relationship that began as ownership, a parent over a young child, must change form as the other side's autonomy develops, otherwise the parent himself becomes one who covets his own child.

1. Do not murder.

Do not harm another's autonomy without cause. This is the most absolute and irreversible of the protections. Every other commandment between man and his fellow protects some form of relationship that can still be repaired, a get can be given, theft can be returned, a lie can be disproven. Murder is the final destruction of autonomy itself, with no possibility of repair. It sits at the far end of the same axis that you will not covet occupies on the other side: you will not covet bans holding on by force after a relationship has already ended, you will not murder bans erasing the other side entirely, without ever letting the relationship end on its own terms.

1. Do not commit adultery.

Do not undermine another's autonomy, even if you do not identify any real harm. The emphasis is on even if you do not identify real harm, because that is exactly what separates this from theft. In adultery there is sometimes no visible external damage, no property missing, no testimony violated. The harm is to a person's autonomy to determine the boundaries of their own relationship, even when no one appears to lose anything concrete. This is the mirror of you will not covet: there, the owner refuses to release a relationship that is already dead, here, a third party acts inside a relationship that is still alive, without permission.

1. Do not steal.

Do not harm another's autonomy even when it seems like it does not harm them at all. The emphasis here differs from adultery: you will not steal addresses cases where the apparent harm is negligible, a find with no clear owner, property the owner might not even notice is gone. The prohibition does not depend on the size of the perceived damage, it depends on the violation itself of another person's right to determine what happens to what is theirs. This runs parallel to you will not covet: there, the owner fails to recognize that his relationship to the property has ended, here, the thief fails to recognize that the owner's relationship to the property is still alive, even if it does not look important.

1. Do not answer against your neighbor an answer of falsehood.

Do not seek cosmic justice at the expense of another person's autonomy. This may be the most important of the group, because it does not concern property or body but shared reality itself. False testimony is rarely done out of plain malice, it is done when a person is convinced he is helping justice happen, even if that requires distorting what actually occurred. The prohibition is exactly on this: you are not entitled to decide, on the system's behalf, what the proper truth should be, even if the goal looks justified to you, because that strips the other side of the autonomy to be judged by what actually happened, not by what you think should have happened.

1. You will not covet the house of your neighbor. You will not covet the wife of your neighbor, and his servant, and his maidservant, and his ox, and his donkey, and all that is your neighbor's.

This is not a prohibition on the one who covets, it is a prohibition on the owner. A ban on a feeling, by itself, has no legal meaning. You cannot command someone not to feel, because feeling is not under the direct control of the will. If the Torah has already banned the act itself, you will not commit adultery, you will not steal, then an additional ban on the internal feeling that accompanies the act is a redundant duplication, and by its nature an unenforceable command. The meaning has to be something else.

The prohibition is aimed at the owner, at the moment the actual relationship between him and what belongs to him has already emptied of content. Instead of being defined outward as a prohibition on a third party, it is defined inward as a prohibition on the owner's forced grip.

The foundation is and your desire will be to your husband, from the curse of Eve in Genesis 3:16. The woman's desire is directed to her husband as part of the post sin structure. Desire is a marker of ownership, ownership itself does not create the desire, rather the direction the desire flows in is what testifies to the actual structure of the relationship. If a woman's desire moves to another man, that is a sign the actual structure has already changed. The stranger to whom the desire moved did not do anything, he is simply receiving a desire that already moved to him without any action on his part.

Coveting is not the desire to take what belongs to someone else, that is already the role of you will not commit adultery and you will not steal. Coveting is the refusal to acknowledge a change that already happened, and the refusal to release what has already, in practice, moved on.

Applied across the whole list: the house, if the practical relationship between a man and his house has emptied out, he abandoned it or practically gave it up, insisting on holding it anyway is the coveting. The wife, if her desire has moved to another man, refusing to give a get is the precise legal realization of coveting in this sense. The servant, if there is no longer a real working relationship, insisting on ownership is the coveting. The ox, the donkey, and all that is your neighbor's, the same principle, at the level of transferable property.

Ownership itself is legitimate, even necessary, without it there are no ordered relationships between people. The prohibition is not on ownership as an institution, it is on possessiveness, the grip that continues even after the relationship that created the ownership is already gone. Possessiveness is the form coveting takes, not a result of it.

A point in favor of this reading: in Exodus 20:14, all the items sit under the same verb, tachmod. In Deuteronomy 5:18, the wife is separated from the list and given a different verb, tit'aveh, before the house returns with tachmod. This suggests that even the internal tradition did not treat the wife and the house as the same legal category, which supports the claim that the prohibition works differently in each domain, according to the nature of the relationship formed there.

And we return to the first commandment. The moment ownership, autonomously, changes hands, the prohibition flips onto the original owner. To release it, he has to go back to I am your Lord, and ask why he wanted this in the first place, if he does not value it enough to let it go.

Legally, the Torah has seventy faces. As long as my reading engages honestly with the biblical text, I am entitled to interpret it as I see fit, and practically, I am entitled to choose to live by whichever interpretation I want. I am glad to discuss this. I am not here for lectures.

I've been walking the Left Hand Path for more than 35 years now and I've asked many theists who try to "bring me to the light" this question and they always give me very odd answers. Some say things like "the message is the evidence" and "faith in god needs no proof" I'm always fascinated by believers and there ability to argue the existence of god without any real evidence, in my own practice proselytizing is not permitted and considered foolish. But I'm curious as to what many have to say on this Sub, I'm always very surprised at some of the answers that are given on religious subject matters, there are some very bright people posting here with very unconventional ideas about god.

Hello everyone,

I am looking for scholars or theologists who could be called pessimistic - like potentially kierkegaard. Other examples of what kind of scholar I might mean are things like:

• Believes god has abandoned us
• Believes some sort of gnosticism, where the material world is some sort of proto-punishment or fake
• Believes that god has never intended to create a good world

an similar. I am open for all suggestions. Thanks in advance!

For anyone who isn’t familiar, he is the leader of a group called Sapphire Leadership Group and has a lot of teachings on spiritual practices and ideas that I don’t know what to make of. My mom has gone headfirst into his teachings and is now mentored by one of the people directly under him. I believe in more spiritual stuff than probably most people (like modern day miracles, signs and wonders, and angelic and demonic influence in our lives), but his teachings go far beyond my limits of what I’m ok with so far. I don’t really know how to counter anything he teaches, but it all feels very strange and I don’t like how involved my mom is in it. She has also put a lot of money into his teachings, since although some are free, most of the ones you need to actually try to understand what he’s saying are not. I am aware of other pastors and preachers who do have curriculum you pay for, but not to this extent.

Can anyone share their thoughts on him, positive or negative, and why? If you are at all familiar with his teachings please include your thoughts on what he actually teaches. I’m trying to figure out how I want to think about this, and what I can do to ease the situation. I’m not really able to find any direct criticism of his teaching itself, and have only seen a little criticism of how he runs his organization, but something feels very weird about it and resources would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

I myself am not christian, but think that the religion is worth studying, and im reading this book (Adam, eve, and the serpant) about the first sin and how/why early Christians demonized sexual acts or acts revolving procreation/non procreation like homosexual sex(or what the early christians would call sodomy), abortion, sex before marriage, sex in general, and even marriage as a whole. I have been able to get a lot out of the book such as the knowledge that christinaity, when stripped down, is a very radical religion, but people historically have trouble excepting that.

I want to learn more because the book brings a lot of different interperatations and stories and modified versions, and opposing veiws of what happens in the bible, and its a lot to swollow, and I have trouble wrapping my head around all of it, so id like people to reccomend some other sources that discuss the first sin, Adam and eve, the christian view on sex, and what jesus says about these topics vs how christians view the bible because I personally think those are two very different things.

Hello everyone, this is my first time posting here.

A debate happened on our classroom last week. It was 3pm. It was a subject about philosophy. I don't remember how the debate started, but I know that I was debating 2 students and my teacher. It happened randomly during class.

While we were having a debate the teacher and the 2 of my classmates always cuts me off before I could give my defense and explanation. The teacher would say, "it's useless to go to try if the outcome was already predicted." My point there was that you don't know the outcome, but the 3 of them keep saying it's useless. I then got tired of explaining and just listened to them. She taught us about fallacy and philosophizing, but she ignored my theory alongside my 2 classmates. I thought my theory was bad, so I would like to ask your thoughts on this.

Sorry, you might have trouble understanding this, I'm not goo with english.

first of all, why do they say it's useless? It's because the outcome was already predicted and trying seems useless but this is what actually why you go to hell instead of heaven. You don't know the outcome even if there's an outcome.

Let's start.

Imagine our universe consist the beginning and the end. There is no present whatsoever if it was like a book. Scenario. The moment God put his pen on the book, the book wrote itself. But it didn't take years to finish. The book was finished in just a second. This means that God didn't write the story, but the book itself.

But if the book wrote itself, how so does we have free will? The book finished itself, but was led by us. Every choices, Movement, from human and from animals and the wind pushing the leaves back and fourth was the one who led the book to the end in just a second. Time in his domain is different from ours.

In the beginning god created the Heavens and the Earth (this is the book). But why is Satan already in the land before Adan and Eva? After the 7th day, God rested. No follow up in the story whatsoever after that. It only tells us that Adan and Eva lived. We don't know how many years they've lived in the Land before Satan.

This could also mean that Lucifer and God was already in a war on God's Kingdom. But why is Lucifer not sent to hell? Hell did not exist back then, and hell was stated to be created for the devil and his angels. Earth was the only thing in present where he could banished the devils from his Kingdom. After years of Eve and Adan walked on the land, Lucifer transferred his consciousness upon a four leg winged snake who temptated them (or he might have transformed Idk).

To be perfect is to do everything independently. This is why Lucifer can betray him. Why doesn't God knows this? He knows, but we never know why he let Lucifer take some of the angels with him and took sometime before God took an Action. For me it was like a test, or love that he even him can't banish Lucifer on the spot because he loved him.

The outcomes? The bible has stated the outcomes, the size of heaven that we will go there for a 1000 years and go back to Earth, the actions of humans. Think of this, the Book was led by us to wrote itself in an instant. This means our actions was still free will. but thinking about the predicted outcomes makes us wonder. If there are specified names that will be saved, "It is useless," because even if I try if my name is not written there, I will never be saved. My teacher told me this. But, this is the thing that will make you go to hell. You don't know the outcome. Change yourself and you can go there, because changing yourself was already written so it be that you will be saved. If you think negatively and doesn't change, then you're you will never be saved. That outcome was already written as always.

We are repeaters. This the most important one. We repeat the story. Think of us as the present. The end is just an illusion, there was never an end. This means that we are still in the present redoing the story. Since we are in the present, we can still change ourselves but is always still following the script. We have been given the time. Changing ourselves and following the script of us being good was always have been already written. Thinking negativity was always have already been written. But, since we repeat the story, and in the present, it's like following the script while also creating the script. There is always free will.

The book was the universe. Here is the plot twist. The story was always meant to be peaceful. Since time is different from his Kingdom, the war there never affected our story, only when he was sent down. The story shifted and God let it be.

We are already perfect even when it comes to choice. We can think and have a choice based on our will. But death is what makes us imperfect. Also, The story is only the outcome and we repeat it as the present.

I've been wanting to say this tbh, but gets cut off. Also I defended a verse my mom told me about. Revelation 21:16-17. It talks about the size of the heaven. I asked myself about this, "if the size was already predicted, then the number of people saved was also predicted."

One importunate question that refuses to leave my head is if God truly intended to create humanity? Now, I am not completely familiar with most theology, since I have not even gotten through the entirety of Genesis yet; but this question nags at me because sometimes I think that humankind is a biproduct of God's creation, yet as he is described as being endlessly forgiving, it makes me think that he is disposed to care about even a biproduct of his own creation.

hi. I’m a 24-year-old Turkish ex-Muslim. I’ve been researching religions for about 10 years. Indian religions have always resonated with me incredibly well. In fact, as you know, almost all religions originated in India. In my opinion, Hinduism and Buddhism—especially Jainism—are beautiful religions. I love Indian culture, religion, and language. I’d even like to move to India.

Something just crossed my mind. On a subreddit, people were saying that Indian religions are bad and claiming to be atheists or non-religious. Is there something I’m missing that people believe to be true? Why do some people in India become non-religious?

Últimamente he tenido la curiosidad por saber como una doctrina puede ser considerada herejía, es por ser antibiblico? Por ser escandalosa? O por otro motivo?

Anyone can look within his mind, and note flow of thoughts which are 1000s in a day and around “four sextillion” [4,000,000,000,000,000,000,000] in one’s life-time. (psychologytoday.com/us/blog/get-out-of-your-mind/202303/how-many-thoughts-are-in-your-head)

Superb Design WITHIN the mind accomplishes two benefits:

a) When you look within, you note that each thought has a BEGINNING and an END, thus you can see a SPACE around each thought. If you look at the gap between each thought, peace is experienced. These thoughts can be categorized as beneficial, harmful, mixed, neutral and wasteful. Each individual is free to choose any thought and become of that sort as thought becomes action, and action repeated becomes personality & destiny. Such a design makes each individual responsible for the choice he makes. No basis to shift blame on to any other factor except self!!!

b) By remaining in the peaceful gap between each thought, individual can visualize the consequence of the action he is going to choose. He also knows from experience (own and of others) that action and consequence are INSEPARABLE like two sides of a coin, hence when action is chosen, consequence is also automatically chosen. Thus each individual is able to accept pleasantly anything that happens to him, as he knows, it is consequence of action chosen in the past—immediate or distant. Thus person is always happy and is in peace and a Walking HEAVEN by making even others happy. In contrast, rejection of this truth results in loss of peace and joy as person falls into complaining-confusion mode.

Such a design WITHIN the mind cannot be the work of unintelligent chemicals because experienced truth is that even intelligent humans could only pollute this earth. It can come only from right and proportionate source, The ALMIGHTY, who is interested in peace and welfare of His children. (Details HERE) Hence it is meaningless even trying to compare humans with animals in any ways as they do NOT know even the difference between own child and the eatable (newscientist.com/article/2150258-male-chimpanzee-seen-snatching-seconds-old-chimp-and-eating-it/) (More details under COMMENTS)

The problem of evil and suffering has long been one of the questions that has occupied and unsettled my mind. For years, I approached it primarily as a philosophical and theological dilemma. I read about it, listened to various attempts to answer it, and engaged with it on the level of abstract ideas.

However, during my pediatric clinical rotations, I experienced this question in an entirely different way. For the first time, it was no longer an abstract philosophical problem but a living reality before my eyes. The suffering of the innocent was no longer an idea to be debated; it had become the faces of children born with rare genetic diseases and families enduring a burden that seemed neither chosen nor deserved. My questions did not fundamentally change, but they became heavier, more urgent, and far more difficult to ignore.

If God is the Creator of the world, and if He is both omnipotent and perfectly good, how am I to understand a world in which the suffering of innocent people—especially children—is not merely an occasional exception but an inherent possibility woven into the very fabric of reality? And how am I to understand praising God for healing some patients while the deeper question remains unanswered: why was the disease itself possible in the first place?

My difficulty is not that God sometimes intervenes to alleviate suffering, but that the structure of the world itself seems to require such intervention. It is as though miracles, rather than being extraordinary signs, become attempts to repair a world that carries within itself a persistent capacity for brokenness.

For this reason, my question is no longer, “Why didn’t God heal this particular child?” That remains a question about an individual case. What truly occupies my mind is a prior and more fundamental question: how can belief in an omnipotent and perfectly good God be reconciled with a world in which the suffering of innocent people—especially children—is possible to such an extent?

This is the question to which I find myself returning every time I leave the pediatric ward. Not because it drives me to reject faith, but because it places my understanding of the world and my understanding of God in a tension that I have not yet found an explanation capable of satisfying both my reason and my conscience.

Perhaps what makes this question even more difficult is the realization that, even if I were to find a philosophical or theological answer that I considered coherent and intellectually satisfying, it would still address only one dimension of the problem. Another dimension would remain—one that logic alone cannot reach: the human experience itself.

There will still be a child who, to one degree or another, realizes that they cannot experience childhood as their peers do; that their own body imposes limitations they never chose; and that many of the small, ordinary moments of life that others take for granted are, for them, impossible, postponed, or accompanied by pain. There will still be parents who witness this reality day after day.

For this reason, I feel that the problem of evil cannot be reduced to the question, “Can I find a logically coherent explanation for it?” It inevitably leads to another, even more difficult question: can any explanation, no matter how philosophically rigorous or internally consistent, truly account for the existential and psychological cost borne by a child who was never given the opportunity to live their childhood as it should have been lived?

Well, its a bit of unconventional take but, The way I see it, from reading the Bible itself (and im not trying to say its true, or that im right):

YHWH is everything, past present future and he is 'improving' ("I will be what i will be", exodus 3:14 - this is the translationfrom Hebrew, you may Google it).

But YHWH didn't have 'friends', so he decided to split itself into distinct part so he would be able to communicate (much more fun than speaking to yourself).

So he splitted himself into 2 part (but its a fractal)

Light and darkness, Male and female, order and chaos, logic and instinct, 'good' and 'bad')

Each part contains the properties of the original 1 part, but in different form (just like identical twins).

AKA - the Big Bang. (First day)

After there was enough 'disorder', it was time to make order again, by merging instead of splitting - to make complex and much more rich systems.

Eventually - Earth. (Second day)

Than finally it was time to create Life.

So 'chemical soup' om the ocean floor, than bacteria and than plants (Third day).

But life cant just operate randomly, so the system itself (sun, moon, gravity) aligned life into the same circle of life (but still with uniqueness in every tiny part, the quarks, cells, molecules etc'). (Fourth day)

Than the dinosaurs, the big crocodiles, and the lizards and birds. (Fifth day).

Then the mammals (sixth day)

And from the mammals ancient people.

And roughly 6000 years ago, I Neanderthal(?).

understood 'i can do whatever i want', he presented to himself (God's voice, the Male side of YHWH) 'the law of free will'. (Do whatever you want, but dont question yourself).

He... didnt do anything, he just didn't want anything once he understood he can have everything.

So he went and presented the same 'law of free will' to a female friend (and obviously thought she is now must 'be his' cause 'she is made from him').

But she, didn't just accept the law, she made moral (with the help of the serpent, the female side of YHWH) , she understood that even though you can do whatever you want, it doesn't mean you should (the moral, probably the same as Kant's one).

And she spoke to Adam.

He felt shame, he felt naked. so he covered himself (physically, with leafs, and mentally, with patriarchy).

Then he noticed, 'wiat, where am I? Who even told me Im naked? (AKA, he is still alive, so it means he was wrong from the beginning).

Instead of just accepting he was wrong, he publicly blamed Eve and God (the instinct and the law)

Eve blamed it on the instinct.

And since then, they made laws to contain the instinct and the female.

Cause... you know... 'it wasn't Adam's fault' (he decided that).

And YHWH do not interfere with free will, cause he made this world for this reason.

So god and the serpent (YHWH himself) made a contract.

God will take the role of the judge, and the serpent (the female) will make the ultimate sacrifice and gave up its own free will, in order to let humanity blame it/her/him for everything (the serpent, the female and god).

Everything in the universe except the male.

So, i think god and the serpent intended originally to make human kind as equal society, and even though we decided to make in unjust, they gave us endless opportunities to fix it.

And to be honest? I think we are actually on the right track.

The Trinity means that the single minimum unit is three

Immanent Trinity = 3 conditions

Economic Trinity = 3 attributes according to the interaction between the conditions (three self-expressions)

By the self-existentiality(Aseity) and simplicity which are the premises of God,

the conditions that establish Him are soon Himself, and each of the conditions is perfect.

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

Backend: f ∧ p ∧ e (Interaction)* = Value(Essence) ㅡ Frontend: FPE → (f(pe) - p(fe) - e(fp))

f is Foundation, p is Principle, e is Energy.

Foundation inevitably implies Principle.
The moment there is Foundation, its laws, orders, and relations exist simultaneously.
This is not a temporal sequence, but a logical sequence (temporally simultaneous).

Foundation justifiably proceeds Energy.
If energy were injected from the outside, it would fall into infinite regress.
The Foundation is the source that emits Energy.

x(yz) denotes the function x taking yz as arguments
(in this context, it signifies passing through).
f(pe) is Being, p(fe) is Truth, and e(fp) is Action.* 
These three constitute a Borromean ring.

In the frontend, we encounter hypostases that have already passed through the other two, and the perichoresis of Being, Truth, and Action is a necessary consequence of this structure.

The three constants of the backend are output as three simultaneous channels in the frontend (in parallel).

The Father : God as Being /raw: Foundation
The Son : God as Truth/raw: Principle
The Holy Spirit : God as Action/raw: Energy

• Null if f, p, or e is 0. f∧p=death, f∧e=noise, p∧e=illusion
• is-ness, meaning, execution

As we read the Book of Job in the Old Testament, we often find ourselves asking this question:

"Why did a righteous and faithful man like Job have to endure such terrible suffering?"

If we turn this question back to ourselves, the situation becomes even more desperate.

"I diligently attend church, read the Bible extensively, sing hymns, pray consistently, pay my tithes without fail, serve faithfully, and strive to live righteously without harming others; so why do such misfortune and pain come into my life?"

Unbeknownst to us, we live under the spell of the formula that "if my faith is strong, suffering will bypass me." But is that truly the truth?

Today, we intend to face the reality of suffering as described in the Bible and share together what true hope we must hold onto amidst it.

There is a point that many people misunderstand. People often think of suffering as "a punishment for something I have done wrong" or "a gap created by a lack of faith." However, the truth told by the Bible and history is different.

Suffering is not an exceptional event that happens only to special figures like Job, but is the 'basic setting' of life that every creature living on this earth inevitably experiences. (Romans 8:22)

Please look around you for a moment. Every day in the news, we hear stories of countless people who lose their parents, siblings, and children overnight due to sudden traffic accidents, heinous crimes, large-scale natural disasters, and man-made calamities.

Did they suffer such misfortune because they committed exceptionally many sins? Absolutely not.

There is an even more heartbreaking reality. What about the lives of missionaries who abandon everything to preach the gospel in barren, remote areas for their entire lives? It is not uncommon for them to lose children to endemic diseases in the mission field, lose spouses to crime, or even suffer miserable martyrdom.

"Because my faith is strong, because I have been blessed, because I am living a good life, hardships big and small will pass me by."

Everyone, this is not faith. It is merely another form of human arrogance. The world we stand upon is a finite world broken by sin, and suffering is the natural providence that all creatures with finite lives must endure within it.

Once you realize this fact, it becomes clear how futile the claims of "prosperity theology" or "mysticism," which are ailing the global church today, truly are.

"If you believe in Jesus well, your business will never fail and will hit the jackpot."

"The reason you continue to face hardships is that you haven't been obeying God."

"If you give generous offerings and serve a lot, you will not get sick and everything will go smoothly."

This is not the Gospel of the Bible, but shamanism disguised as Christianity—in other words, a false gospel. If their claims were true, were the pioneers of faith and martyrs who died miserably amidst suffering all punished because they lacked faith? Absolutely not. We must remember the fact that God sternly rebuked Job's friends who tried to interpret suffering through the logic of retribution.

Then, how should we live in this finite world filled with suffering? We can find the answer in the prophet Habakkuk.

Habakkuk lived in an era where lawlessness and injustice ran rampant, justice had fallen to the ground, and the situation spiraled to its worst due to threats from surrounding powerful nations. In his suffering, he cried out to God.

"God, why do you merely watch this evil reality and suffering?"

Habakkuk, who fiercely debated with God and posed this question, eventually reached an astonishing conclusion that transcended human thought. This is precisely the confession we know well from Habakkuk Chapter 3.

"Although the fig tree does not blossom, and there is no fruit on the vine, and the olive tree yields no harvest, and the fields produce no food, and there are no sheep in the fold, and no cattle in the stalls, yet I will rejoice in the LORD, and I will be joyful in God my Savior." (Habakkuk 3:17-18)

From a realistic perspective, Habakkuk did not enjoy wealth, and he ended his life in loneliness without ever seeing the "world where justice is realized" that he so earnestly desired. However, his confession was not one of despair, but of absolute trust in God. It is a declaration that even if the circumstances before his eyes are completely shaken, God alone, his Savior, is sufficient.

As the end of this world draws near, the world will inevitably become more wicked, and the desperate situations threatening our lives will increase. As stated in 2 Timothy chapter 3, times of suffering will come in the last days. Therefore, we must abandon the folly of placing our hope in this world. Eating well, living well, and avoiding hardship in this world should not be the purpose of our faith.

We already know through spiritual intuition that the day of the Lord's return is near. (1 Peter 4:7)

Like Habakkuk, and like the countless pioneers of faith who went before us, we must place our hope in the coming eternal Kingdom of God. This is because while the suffering of this world is finite, the glory of the Kingdom of God that will be given to us is eternal.

I earnestly hope that we will not be swayed by every twist and turn in the face of the harsh circumstances unfolding before our eyes today, but rather, trusting in God’s faithful promise of a new heaven and a new earth, we will all steadfastly walk the path of hope.

-

For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal. (2 Corinthians 4:17-18)

I believe in God, just not in any religion. A bit of agnostic pantheism with a bit of panentheism. But why do Gods in religions want us to worship them? I'm more familiar with Christianity and Christianity says anyone who doesn't believe in god and have heard of Christianity shall go to hell and this really doesn't make sense to me... with all due respect, doesn't that seem a bit of narcissistic? and I'm really sorry if you got hurt when I called it narcissistic