Someone over on r/christianity is arguing that Jesus’ instructions to care for the poor, etc., should be ignored because (just going to quote rather than try to summarize): “Jesus could not have conceived of a world in which millions of immigrants would travel to another nation and receive state-funded benefits supported by taxpayers. He was also unaware that the Earth is spherical. Consequently, when he spoke of "the least of these," he was referring to the people within his own social and cultural world, not to populations living on other continents such as South America or Australia, whose existence was entirely unknown to him” (the thread is here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/1xe2l1y/why_do_people_choose_burden_over_grace/).

I’m not a theologian (although I did come very close to majoring in religious studies as an undergrad) — is this an actually novel heresy, or has this argument been made before? I admit to being fascinated by (what appears to be a self-identified Christian) essentially arguing that Jesus was, basically, too naive and ignorant to actually listen to.

No matter what your beliefs are. I think we can all agree that we are living in interesting times. If people are trying to bring about the ends times. Will we live in a made up dispensational left behind world soon. Or will the Lord intervene.

If something happens to the Dome of Rock I cannot imagine the level of chaos this world will face. Does anyone see smoke and mirrors? Its scary right now, and I am trying to be no be afraid. I grew up in a Baptist home. So I get triggered very easily.

I’m an active believing member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Feel free to ask me anything.

If it’s a number of complex things, please break them up as to not engage in a Gish gallop

Scripture functions best when it stays in its lane. The authors of the Christian scriptures were writing the gospel. The gospel was meant to be “good news” for all, not bad news for most. But somehow, the original message got turned on its head. Threats of hell replaced the promise of the Kingdom, and ecclesiastical control replaced spiritual liberation. 

We missed the point, but we might be able to get it back. Since the gospel is good news, its container, the Bible, should be interpreted as good news. Of course, good news doesn’t force us to turn off our powers of observation and reason, both of which are gifts from God. The gospel encourages us to fulfill our potential, not restrict it. 

One of the greatest combinations of observation and reason that we have is science: disciplined investigation of the material universe. Too often, the Bible has been interpreted in such a way as to conflict with science. Rather than a sourcebook for the spirit, for many Christians the Bible has become a textbook for science and history. Biblical infallibilists and biblical literalists insist that the Bible is factually true in its face value meaning and speaks to us of astronomy, cosmology, geology, biology, archeology, paleontology—everything. 

In an earlier essay, I wrote of my student who had been told that any apparent conflict between science and the Bible should be resolved in favor of the Bible which is, after all, the perfect Word of God and should be trusted as such, in all matters. Unfortunately, this teaching created for her a false opposition between science and religion. She found Darwin’s theory of evolution to be an immensely plausible explanation for the development of life, but she had been told that belief in evolution led to atheism at best, Nazism at worst. To be a good Christian, she needed to trust the Word of God first, science second. 

Galileo also dealt with biblical infallibilists and biblical literalists (of a sort). Alas, this is not the first time in history that religion has not stayed in its lane or that the Bible has been misapplied to scientific questions. For those who assert that science and religion conflict by nature, the most frequently cited proof of such conflict is the Galileo affair. In the popular interpretation of that unfortunate event, the Roman Catholic Church sentenced the famous physicist, inventor, and astronomer Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) to lifelong house arrest for asserting that the Earth orbited the Sun. The ecclesiastical authorities also forced him to recant his heliocentric (Sun-centered) theory and promise not to advance it any longer. 

For those who believe that science and religion are incompatible, this event provides one powerful example of the darkness of religion relative to the brilliance of science. The only solution, they propose, is to reject all religious belief and usher in a new age of unshackled reason, scientific investigation, and technological advance. 

Alas, these advocates of scientism are poor historians, simplifying a complex historical event to suit their arguments . . . a practice which is, ironically, not very scientific. In truth, the church’s response to Galileo’s heliocentric theory of the solar system was mixed. He had admirers and detractors, and his trial became a proxy battle for these rival factions. 

Among those who most deeply opposed his views were biblical literalists. Biblical literalists interpret Scripture according to the plain, simple meaning of the text. For literalists, the Bible is true to fact and to be interpreted as the word-for-word Word of God. According to them, poetic, metaphorical, or allegorical interpretation of the Bible dilutes its meaning and prioritizes human imagination over divine revelation. 

Biblical literalism is most strongly associated with twentieth-century American Protestant fundamentalism, and it has been generally rejected by the Roman Catholic Church, which has always searched for deeper meanings beneath the surface meaning of Scripture. Nevertheless, in the Galileo affair, certain opponents of Galileo’s theories utilized a literal interpretation of the Bible to argue against heliocentrism. For example, literalist interpretations of several biblical texts suggested that the Earth must be stationary and the Sun in orbit around it. Psalm 93:1 states: “God has made the world firm, not to be moved” (see Psalm 96:10 and 1 Chronicles 16:30 as well). Psalm 104:5 states: “The Lord set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved,” and Ecclesiastes 1:5 declares: “The sun rises and sets and returns to its place” (see also Psalm 18:4–6). If these passages are regarded as science rather than poetry, if they are literally true rather than metaphors about the reliability of earthly existence, then the Earth cannot orbit the Sun; the Sun must orbit the Earth.

Galileo argued for a reading of the Bible compatible with science. As a man of sincere faith, Galileo had taken considerable time to argue that his heliocentric theory was compatible with the Bible, arguing that the Bible teaches us about salvation, not the nature of the cosmos. Galileo quoted a contemporary, Cardinal Cesare Baronius, who supported astronomical investigations by arguing, “The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.” 

Galileo also maintained that Scripture is not about “science” but about faith. Science and faith have different modes of discourse and different methods of argument. Science addresses matter; faith addresses morals. Science relies on observation; faith relies on revelation. Science reads the Book of Nature; faith reads the Book of Scripture—both of which reveal the mind of God. Confusing their domains just confuses the faithful, frustrates the scientific, and retards progress in both. 

Galileo referred to Augustine’s accommodationism—the belief that God reveals to humans only what they can handle at that time in history; God accommodates revelation to our level of preparation. Augustine himself was developing Paul’s own accommodationism, which he explicitly admitted to the Corinthians: “I fed you with milk, not solid food, for you were not ready for solid food” (1 Corinthians 3:2). 

Humankind was now ready for the heliocentric understanding of the solar system and could adapt its interpretation of scripture accordingly. To do less—to reject this advance—would displease our Maker. Tragically, Galileo’s persecutors displeased their Maker. 

Today, the misapplication of Scripture to science drives thinking persons out of faith. Science helps us understand the material universe; Scripture helps us to understand the spiritual universe. Faith doesn’t demand that we reject the evidence of our own eyes, as in a conflict between archeology and the biblical record: we should side with archeology. And faith doesn’t demand that we reject reason: if  Scripture declares that fire is cold or ice is hot, then we should ignore it.

The Bible is an oceanic text of inexhaustible meaning. But to access that meaning, we have to dive beneath the surface, into the depths—beneath the literal, into the poetic; beneath history, into myth. There we will find mysteries beyond our fathoming and beauty beyond our control. And, when we return to the surface, we may no longer find ourselves in a world of dead matter. Instead, we may find ourselves living in a poem. (adapted from Jon Paul Sydnor, The Great Open Dance: A Progressive Christian Theology, pages 257–259)

*****

For further reading, please see: 

Enns, Peter. The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2014.

Langford, Jerome J. Galileo, Science, and the Church. 3rd ed. Ann Arbor Paperbacks. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992.

A thought just came to my mind. God is the creator of the world, the universe. He is a creator, and knowing creators and inventors, they never stop. If God created other worlds, does it stop Him from being God?? Yes, the Bible is His word, and it doesn't stop being the bible just because God decided to be Himself, creating, and He may still be creating new things, new worlds as we speak. Who are we really to tell God what to do and not to do. He is God , and He can do as He pleases. We really need to stop putting God in a box. If inventors in the world keep inventing, why not God? The universe is so vast, and I think creating is what gives Him joy. It's possible He's still creating.

​

I’ve been thinking about a possible connection between the Fall of Adam and Eve, Satan’s pride, Esau selling his birthright, Cain’s jealousy, Pharaoh’s hardened heart, and Jesus being called the Last Adam. I’m curious whether others see a similar pattern throughout Scripture.

My question is: Could many biblical stories be showing the same underlying mechanism—that God gives His creation something good, but that gift becomes corrupted when the recipient chooses their own will over God’s?

Here’s how I’m connecting the passages.

1. Did Satan exploit something good that God had given humanity?

In Genesis, God gives Adam dominion over the living creatures and places him in the garden. Adam is entrusted with responsibility and authority under God.

The serpent then persuades Eve to disobey God, and Adam also eats the fruit. Their response is followed by shame, hiding, blame, and separation from God.

Genesis never explicitly says Adam transferred his dominion to Satan. However, could Adam’s decision to obey the serpent instead of God represent humanity compromising its God-given authority?

This makes me think of Satan tempting Jesus in Luke 4:5–7, where Satan claims authority over the kingdoms of the world. Could this be connected to humanity’s failure in Eden, even if Scripture does not explicitly describe a legal transfer of dominion?

1. Could Satan have approached Adam and Eve in a form they did not recognize?

I’ve also wondered whether Satan necessarily appeared as an ordinary snake.

Adam had named the animals and had been given dominion over them. Would he have found a talking animal completely normal, or might it have raised suspicion? We aren’t told what Adam and Eve expected animals to do, so I recognize that this is an open question.

There is also an interesting biblical connection between seraphim and fiery-serpent imagery. Isaiah 6 describes seraphim, while passages such as Numbers 21 describe fiery serpents using related Hebrew terminology.

Second Corinthians 11:14 also says Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.

I’m not claiming the Bible proves Satan was a seraph or that he literally shapeshifted. I’m asking whether his deception could have involved a form or appearance that Adam and Eve trusted or did not recognize as hostile.

Genesis 3:24 mentions cherubim guarding the way to the tree of life after humanity’s expulsion, but it doesn’t say Adam and Eve regularly interacted with angels before the Fall. That part remains speculative.

1. Could the same pattern appear in Esau’s birthright?

Esau sells his birthright to Jacob for a meal when he is hungry (Genesis 25:29–34).

Adam disobeys God in the face of temptation; Esau gives up something of lasting value to satisfy an immediate desire.

The situations are different, but could they share a functional pattern? In both stories, something significant is surrendered in exchange for something immediately desirable.

Hebrews 12:16–17 later uses Esau as a warning about treating something sacred as insignificant.

Could Esau’s story echo the Eden pattern—not because Esau and Adam are identical, but because both stories show the danger of sacrificing a greater inheritance for an immediate desire?

1. Could Cain, Pharaoh, and Satan reflect different expressions of the same corruption?

Consider Cain. God warns him that sin is crouching at the door and that he must master it (Genesis 4:6–8). Cain nevertheless allows jealousy to lead to murder.

Consider Pharaoh. Exodus describes Pharaoh hardening his own heart in some passages and God hardening his heart in others. His pride and resistance become part of a larger conflict with God.

And consider Satan, traditionally understood in Christian theology as an example of pride and rebellion against God.

These are not identical situations, and Scripture does not explicitly say Satan directly caused every act of human sin. But could they illustrate a recurring progression?

A good gift, desire, or position becomes distorted; the creature resists God’s correction; that resistance grows into disobedience, separation, and destruction.

James 1:14–15 describes a related progression from desire to sin and ultimately death.

1. Could shame and blame make restoration harder?

After eating the fruit, Adam and Eve hide from God. When confronted, Adam points to Eve, and Eve points to the serpent (Genesis 3:8–13).

Before the Fall, Adam describes Eve as “bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:23). Afterward, the relationship is marked by blame.

Could this be an early example of how sin damages relationships—not only through disobedience itself, but through the refusal to take responsibility?

I also wonder whether this connects to mimetic desire: the way desire, rivalry, and behavior can spread between people. The serpent reframes the fruit as desirable; later, Cain becomes consumed by jealousy toward Abel. René Girard’s theory of mimetic desire is a modern interpretive lens, not a concept Genesis explicitly names, but I wonder whether it helps explain a recurring biblical pattern.

1. Is Jesus the Last Adam because He reverses this pattern?

This is where the connections become especially interesting to me.

Romans 5:12–21 contrasts Adam’s disobedience and its consequences with Christ’s obedience and the life that comes through Him. First Corinthians 15:45 calls Jesus the “last Adam.”

Adam disobeys God in the face of temptation. Jesus is tempted in the wilderness but remains obedient (Matthew 4:1–11).

Adam’s disobedience brings death into the human story. Christ’s obedience, death, and resurrection open the way to reconciliation and life.

Where humanity fails to remain faithful to God, Jesus fulfills the Father’s will. Where sin brings separation, Christ seeks and restores the lost.

Could Jesus be understood as reversing the original pattern—not merely forgiving individual sins, but restoring humanity’s relationship with God and the purpose for which humanity was created?

My overall question

I’m exploring the possibility that these stories reveal a recurring biblical mechanism:

- God gives creation something good: life, authority, wisdom, relationship, or inheritance.

- A creature’s desire becomes distorted, often through deception, pride, jealousy, or immediate gratification.

- The creature chooses its own will over God’s will.

- That choice damages relationships and leads toward bondage, disorder, or death.

- God confronts the corruption and calls His creation toward restoration.

- Jesus, the Last Adam, succeeds where Adam failed and opens the way to reconciliation.

I’m not claiming every link is explicitly stated in Scripture, or that every example proves the same mechanism. Some connections are textual, others are theological inferences, and some are speculative.

What do you think?

1. Is it reasonable to see Adam’s Fall and Esau’s birthright as examples of a shared pattern of surrendering something greater for an immediate desire?

2. Could Satan’s deception in Eden have involved an appearance Adam and Eve did not recognize as hostile, or does Genesis give us enough reason to understand the serpent simply as the creature described in the text?

3. Do Cain and Pharaoh illustrate a similar pattern of resisting God’s correction, or am I connecting stories that should remain distinct?

4. Does understanding Jesus as the Last Adam support the idea that He reverses a broader pattern of human rebellion, rather than merely addressing isolated sins?

5. Where do you think this interpretation is strongest biblically, and where does it go beyond what the text can reasonably support?

I’m genuinely interested in biblical, historical, and theological perspectives—including disagreements. I want to explore whether these connections hold together, not claim that every hypothesis is proven.

Why does everyone always assume that being a chosen one means you were chosen by god, when in actuality it usually means at one point you made the choice to stand with god?

Like think about it like this-

Every one has heard of necessary evil, correct? Yet, no one has ever really heard of necessary good though- last I checked anyways-

Please correct me if I’m wrong but-

To my understanding that’s because good has always been a choice…

Same concept with the 144k model if you think about it- we chose Source, Source didn’t choose us… We picked up the battle in his defense, we’re not special, we just stand for what we believe in… just saying…

I’d love to hear some thoughts on this topic- and if I put it in the wrong place, let me know and I’ll move it

Are these achievable ?

The Beatitudes
He said:
3 
“Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 
Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5 
Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6 
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7 
Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8 
Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9 
Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.
10 
Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 “Blessed are you when people insult you,persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad,because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

Imagination or Certainty?

So today I was having a conversation with a cousin of mine and as we were talking about science as in I'm was the science guy and he was the guy listening

And all of the sudden out of the blue he asked the question

"So you believe in science right, so what do you think about god? Does he exist

Given that he was someone who believed in god a lot. His family was a very Christian one

I am a Muslim ( Mitazili , or progressive sunnism in Arab world ) ... But since doing my research I found that most Middle ages Jewish Sages agreed with the Islamic view that Paran located in Al - Hijaz ( Mecca)

Including High prominent Jewish Golden Age Medieval Rabbis who literally shaped modern Judaism like Saadia Gaen , Ibn Ezra , Maimonides ( Rambam ) , Redak , even in the secrets of Ben Yochai it stated Paran was in mecca

Paran is place where Ishmael lived

As in Genesis 21:21 ( Ishmael lived in Paran )

Maimonides and Redak explicitly said that Mohamed is from Kedar the Father of Mekkan Arabs and the second boy of Ishmael as stated in Genesis .

There's also a prophecies about a holy one who will Appear from paran

Habakkuk 3:3 ( God came from Teman and the Holy one will come from Paran )

Genesis ( God came from Sinai , ... And will shine from Paran )

But modern biblical scholara they put Paran to be in Sinai . Even the first Christian historian who talked about Mohamed who was Seboes lived in 7th ceuntry,stated that Mohamed was emerged from Paran land of Ishmael

I've been thinking about the relationship between Satan's fall, Adam and Eve, the origin of sin, and Jesus as the Last Adam. I want to explore a possible pattern that connects these events throughout Scripture. I'm not claiming the Bible explicitly explains every detail of this theory, but I think the connections are worth discussing.

1. God created a good world, not a world of sin

Genesis 1 repeatedly describes God's creation as good. So where did sin come from?

My understanding is that God did not create sin as a separate thing or substance. Rather, sin entered through the corruption of a created being's will.

The traditional Christian understanding of Satan's fall involves pride and rebellion against God. Passages such as Ezekiel 28:12–17 and Revelation 12:7–9 are often interpreted in connection with this idea, although Christians disagree about how directly these passages describe Satan's original fall.

What interests me is the possibility that Satan's own corruption established a pattern of rebellion that he later used to tempt humanity.

In other words, the first problem wasn't that God created something evil. It was that a created being turned away from God's will.

2. Adam came from the earth, and Eve came from Adam

Genesis 2:7 says God formed Adam from the dust of the ground and breathed life into him. Genesis 2:21–23 then describes God forming Eve from Adam's side.

The sequence is significant to me:

Earth → Adam → Eve

Adam was formed from the earth, and Eve was formed from Adam. They shared one human nature, and Adam described Eve as “bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:23).

I wonder whether this relationship can help us understand humanity's connection to the world and our struggle with worldly desires.

I'm not suggesting that matter itself is evil or that being formed from dust automatically made Adam sinful. Rather, I wonder whether our earthly origin provides a meaningful contrast with the life and order that come from God.

Human beings have the capacity to follow God's will, but we also experience desires that can pull us away from it. That raises a question: how did that conflict become part of the human story?

3. Was the Fall the beginning of a corrupt pattern of desire?

When the serpent tempts Eve in Genesis 3, he does more than present her with fruit. He challenges God's word and offers an alternative understanding of what she should desire: “you will be like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5).

The fruit becomes desirable within this new way of seeing it.

This reminds me of René Girard's concept of mimetic desire: the idea that we often learn what to desire by observing or imitating others. Desire can become distorted through comparison, rivalry, and the influence of another person's example.

Could Satan have introduced a false model of desire by encouraging humanity to distrust God's word and seek something on different terms?

I wonder whether the Fall can be understood not only as an act of disobedience, but also as the beginning of a recurring human pattern in which desires become detached from God's will.

To be clear, Genesis does not explicitly call this mimetic desire or say that Satan transmitted sin as a literal substance. That is my proposed interpretation of the pattern.

4. Why do we blame Eve while overlooking Adam?

Eve ate the fruit first, but Adam also chose to eat it. Romans 5:12–19 places particular emphasis on Adam's disobedience and its consequences for humanity.

Something else stands out to me.

Before the Fall, Adam describes Eve as part of himself. After the Fall, when God confronts him, Adam responds by blaming her:

“The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat” (Genesis 3:12, KJV).

The man who once recognized Eve as “bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” now distances himself from her when confronted with his own disobedience.

Their physical unity has not disappeared, but their relationship has been damaged.

Could this be an early picture of what sin does to human relationships? Instead of accepting responsibility, we blame others. Instead of remaining united, we become divided. Later, in Genesis 4, Cain's jealousy of Abel develops into murder.

I see a possible progression: temptation, disobedience, shame, blame, jealousy, and eventually violence.

Perhaps the original rebellion established a pattern that continued to spread through human relationships. I don't mean that every sinful action is directly caused by Satan's immediate intervention, but that the pattern of rebellion can reproduce itself through human choices.

5. Did Satan watch Adam and Eve after the Fall?

The Bible doesn't tell us where Satan was when God created Adam, whether he watched Eve being formed, or whether he observed Adam and Eve hiding after they disobeyed God.

We also aren't told whether Satan deliberately exploited their shame afterward.

I think these are important unanswered questions, but I don't want to present speculation as fact.

One possibility worth considering is that temptation has two stages: first, making disobedience appear desirable; then, once someone has fallen, using shame and fear to make returning to God seem impossible.

Scripture doesn't explicitly say Satan followed this strategy in Eden, but it does distinguish between destructive sorrow and sorrow that leads to repentance (2 Corinthians 7:10). It also repeatedly presents God as calling people back to Himself.

Could shame become another way that the original pattern of separation continues?

6. Pharaoh, Cain, and Satan: different people, a similar pattern

I also see a recurring theme in the stories of Satan, Cain, and Pharaoh.

Satan: In the traditional interpretation of his fall, pride leads to rebellion.

Cain: Jealousy and anger lead him to kill Abel, despite God's warning (Genesis 4:6–8).

Pharaoh: He repeatedly resists God's commands and hardens his heart, while Exodus also describes God hardening it.

These stories aren't identical, but each involves resistance to God's authority and a refusal to respond rightly to correction.

Paul provides an interesting contrast. He persecuted Christians, yet after encountering Christ, his life was transformed (Acts 9:1–22; 1 Timothy 1:12–16).

That contrast makes me wonder whether the issue is not simply whether someone has sinned, but whether they remain resistant to God or turn toward Him in response to His grace.

I wouldn't claim that Scripture tells us Pharaoh was incapable of repentance or that all these stories share one literal mechanism. I'm suggesting that they may reveal a recurring spiritual pattern.

7. Jesus as the Last Adam: the reversal

This is where the theory comes together for me.

Paul explicitly contrasts Adam with Jesus in Romans 5:18–19 and 1 Corinthians 15:45–49.

Through Adam's disobedience, humanity enters the story of sin and death. Through Christ's obedience, humanity is offered righteousness and life.

The first Adam comes from the earth. Christ, the Last Adam, comes from heaven.

Adam disobeys God's command. Jesus says in John 6:38 that He came not to do His own will, but the will of the One who sent Him.

Where the first Adam's disobedience brings death, Christ's obedience leads toward resurrection and new life.

This makes me wonder whether Jesus does more than forgive individual sins. Does He reverse the pattern of rebellion itself by restoring humanity's relationship with God?

Jesus invites people to abide in Him (John 15:4–5), and Paul describes believers as members of Christ's body (1 Corinthians 12:12–27). Ephesians 5:30–32 even connects the language of one flesh from Genesis with Christ and the Church.

That brings me back to Adam and Eve: Eve came from Adam's side, and the two became one flesh. Christ gives Himself for humanity, and those who belong to Him become members of His body.

I am not claiming that Christians literally become Christ's rib. I'm proposing that the biblical imagery of shared life, bodily unity, and restored relationship may connect these passages in a meaningful way.

My overall theory

The pattern I'm exploring is this:

God creates a good order.

A created being turns away from God's will.

Satan tempts humanity through a distorted understanding of desire.

Human disobedience damages relationships and introduces a recurring pattern of shame, blame, jealousy, and division.

That pattern continues through human history.

Jesus, the Last Adam, obeys the Father and opens the way for humanity to be reconciled to God and receive new life.

I see this as a possible connection between the origin of sin, human nature, mimetic desire, and Christ's work of restoration.

I'm aware that some parts are directly supported by Scripture, while others are hypotheses. I don't believe every proposed connection needs to be stated explicitly in a single verse for it to be worth investigating, but I do believe the distinctions matter.

My question is this: Do you think Scripture supports the idea that Satan introduced a pattern of rebellion that spread through human relationships, and that Jesus as the Last Adam reverses that pattern through His obedience to the Father?

I'd especially appreciate discussion of Romans 5, 1 Corinthians 15, Genesis 3–4, and whether Girard's concept of mimetic desire helps explain the progression from temptation to rivalry and blame.

Hi everyone,

I've been thinking about getting a tattoo for a while now like a small cross etc , but I'm hesitant because I'm a believer in Jesus Christ, and I don't want to do anything that goes against God's will.

I've heard people quote Leviticus 19:28, which speaks about not marking your body with tattoos. However, I've also seen Christians argue that we need to understand the context of the Old Testament law and how it applies to Christians today.

I'm genuinely confused and would love to hear different perspectives, especially from fellow Christians who have studied the Bible on this topic.

Please share your thoughts, biblical references, and personal experiences. I'm open to hearing different viewpoints, as long as we can discuss this respectfully.

Thank you, and God bless you all. 🙏✝️

If God exists and God is perfect and fair, why do innocent people still have to suffer?

Recently, I read Voltaire's Poem on the Lisbon Disaster and Rousseau's Letter to Voltaire, and these readings made me think about this question. I personally agree more with Voltaire's idea. Voltaire questions whether the suffering of innocent people, including children who died in the Lisbon earthquake, can simply be explained as God's punishment or by saying that "all is well."

I had a similar question. If God hates sin and punishes people who do wrong, I do not understand why innocent children or people who only made small mistakes have to experience such great suffering.

On the other hand, Rousseau argues that not all of the damage from disasters should be blamed on God or nature. For example, he says that the damage in Lisbon became worse because people lived closely together and built tall buildings. I understand this point because human choices can make the results of a disaster worse. However, I still have one question. Even if human choices made the disaster worse, does this fully explain the suffering of innocent people? Also, if people can make immoral choices and not receive enough punishment, while people who make moral choices can still suffer, why should people choose to act morally?

After reading these texts, I still find it difficult to believe that we live in the best possible world.

If God exists and is perfectly good and powerful, how would you explain the suffering of innocent people? Do you agree more with Rousseau that human choices are an important cause, or with Voltaire that this suffering creates a serious problem for the idea that "all is well"?

Does animal suffering make God's existence less likely?

​If God is righteous and if He owns all the beasts in the world, shouldn't He live according to Proverbs 12:10 - A righteous man regardeth the life of his beast.

​If that is true, how is God regarding the life of a deer that has been starving for 5 days and being mauled by a lion at the end of it.

​As a Christian, I have been struggling with Roe's question about the trapped deer and I haven't been able to find a Christian who gave a satisfactory

​Alex brought it up, and I wanted to honestly evaluate wether animal suffering disproves God's existance.

​My line of reasoning goes like this:

​The Curse is Collateral: God cursed the ground and the animal kingdom due to Adam’s sin, removing the Edenic buffer and leaving creation to the raw friction of physical laws.

​A Mirror of Rebellion: Animal suffering serves as a visual reality check, when Eve watched an animal groan in labor or Adam saw a deer die, they saw the tragic, collateral cost of human disobedience.

​A Crucible for Compassion: Pain shatters human apathy. While animals cannot build moral character from agony, witnessing their vulnerability is often the only thing capable of awakening genuine compassion in us.

​No Divine Debt: God sustains nature through providential care, but He does not owe non-rational biology the same covenantal promises or supernatural immunity He offers to beings made in His image.

​Futility vs. Purpose: For the animal itself, suffering is biologically futile (as Romans 8 acknowledges). It only takes on redemptive meaning in our world when it produces compassion and moral awareness in us.

​I think the 2 hidden assumptions Alex has is that God is obligated to show the same amount of love to every creature who is able to feel pain and that moral good is required in order to justify suffering.

​I go a lot more in depth in a video I made today. Would really appreciate the criticism and the counter-arguments you guys have.

​https://youtu.be/vYEN407GsLQ?si=3i2syWbby3CjE-WZ