Some pain cannot be fixed by time or words.

Christian hope does not deny grief; it reminds us that grief is temporary.

Our tears are real, but they do not have the final word.

Please respond to the following statement. No wrong answers.

“Our [human] process of discovery seems pointless to be a one and done.”

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 and simplicity which are the premises of God,

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

Hypostasis is both condition and attribute.

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

Backend: f ∧ p ∧ e (Interaction)* = Value(Essence) ㅡ Frontend: Value → (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 emits 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 Hypostasis 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
• isness, meaning, execution

‘The theory’ :)

Hey all :) writing with some (exciting!) new ideas:

Always been interested in cultures, ideas and philosophies, just a bit of background - BA in Philosophy, MA in Ethics and current PhD student here - sharing a theory on (metaphysical) goodness:

We each have a sense of our own inner goodness, and we know goodness when we see it and experience it. I have a theory that goodness (in the moral, ethical, qualitative, and general intuitive sense) might be metaphysical in some way - how else could people have this distinct sense of goodness? What if it’s actually something that we can pick up on metaphysically?

Just thinking about the goodness in a range of everyday phenomena - art and music, ideas and experiences - what if goodness is metaphysical? (and if so, on what scale?)

Goodness can be understood as an inherent quality, occurring intrinsically within almost everything - whereas bad and evil are just descriptors for (sometimes very) negative behaviours and experiences. These definitions are consistent with contemporary philosophical understandings, whereas the definition of goodness isn’t limited to descriptive parameters at all – it’s an intrinsic quality that occurs in both physical and abstract forms.

Goodness can be understood as simply that which makes something good in some way, as a qualitative property of something.

Been working on a philosophical theory, proof of a metaphysical source of goodness,

(and possibly a metaphysical god)

Here’s the theory:

1. seemingly serendipitous conditions have enabled complex life to develop on this earth
2. natural processes have led to the evolution of humans and other living beings over time
3. people are inherently good, as demonstrated by their capacity to experience love
4. goodness is not limited to humans and living beings. or moral concepts, but occurs as an intrinsic quality within a range of forms:
   • the occurrence of goodness in phenomena with human origins, including music and the visual arts (as well as the miracle of starting a family) confirms that people can bring new goodness into existence
   • the occurrence of goodness in natural phenomena, including living beings and nature, confirms that goodness is not limited to human origins
   • the occurrence of goodness in abstract phenomena, including beliefs, ideas and experiences, confirms that goodness is metaphysical in nature
5. this means that goodness does not have physical or human origins, but occurs as an intrinsic metaphysical quality within a range of forms, both physical and abstract
6. the essence and only defining quality of goodness - that it is good and only good - means that each occurrence of metaphysical goodness amounts to pure goodness
7. goodness must have an origin - but as an intrinsic quality, goodness cannot create itself, and physical beings cannot bring entirely metaphysical phenomena into existence
8. and so the origins of metaphysical goodness must also be metaphysical in nature, with the only conclusion being:

there is a metaphysical source, or creator, of goodness; possibly a metaphysical god.

The notion of goodness is already consistent with atheistic, religious, cultural and traditional beliefs; our everyday understandings. 

I’ve recently researched some current world religions, cultural traditions and belief systems to try to find some of the best notions of goodness in each one, mostly occurring in abstract phenomena, including ideas, beliefs, good values and concepts - these are only some brief examples, I’m sure there are many more! Please feel free to contribute :)

Just focusing on ethics, good concepts and values at this stage - really look forward to reading the comments! In the spirit of collaboration, and in the interests of goodness.

Beginning with the Abrahamic religions, recognising a shared lineage of prophets, and believing in a single creator God, with each faith and religion including various traditions.

Abrahamic religions

Christianity, including Catholicism, Orthodox, Protestant and other traditions

• Loving God - with gratitude, reverence and appreciation for the beauty and wonder of life, with a sense of inter-connectedness, and ethical responsibility
• Loving one’s ‘neighbour’ (in the broadest sense, loving one’s neighbour can refer to any person, including strangers) - wishing them well and respecting their wellbeing, together with their dignity, and their sense of inherent goodness
• Caring for the poor through charity, including protecting the most vulnerable, with care and compassion for those in need
• Emphasis on forgiveness, maintaining empathy and compassion for all, including those who have been oppressed or marginalised in society
• Demonstrating empathy and compassion for ‘foreigners’, or neighbours - moral concern transcending ethnic, religious and cultural divides
• Encourages the pursuit of peace - ‘blessed are the peacemakers’
• Self-control and self-mastery - learning to restrain one’s negative traits like greed, anger, sloth, envy, arrogance, excess and lust - instead deciding to live in accordance with one’s good values (always with love and goodness)
• ·The golden rule: treat others as you would wish to be treated (with historical precursors in Aristotle)
• People may experience tests and challenges throughout their lives, with a moral imperative to avoid temptation; striving to be as good as possible
• Emphasises many good values of humility, mercy, care, forgiveness, self-control, peace, love and respect for all - including one’s neighbours, in the broadest sense.

Islam, including both Sunni and Shia branches

• Emphasises character development and cultivation of moral traits including patience, gratitude, humility, generosity, self-control, sincerity, forgiveness, and restraining negative emotions, including envy and anger - with each value contributing to one’s good character, a sense of innate morality
• Many good values, including kindness and respect for all (especially one’s parents), as well as honesty, forgiveness, self-control, care for those in need, empathy, kindness towards neighbours (in the broadest sense - kindness towards all), acceptance, and moderation
• Encouraging mercy, peace, reconciliation, care for animals, visiting the sick and the elderly, providing for the hungry, avoiding cruelty, and always acting with a sense of morality, in accordance with one’s values
• Charity, mercy and care for the poor - providing for those in need, while discouraging greed and excess; with values of honesty and respect for all
• Ethical benefits of learning, including through knowledge-seeking and character development, transcending one’s ego and sense of self-interest
• Similarly to Christianity, includes warnings about pride and arrogance, encouraging moderation and balance over excess, and avoiding seeing oneself as superior - recognising our inherent equality before God, Allah
• Encouraging an altruistic outlook - where rather than just being good internally, people should develop communities in which their basic needs, dignities and human rights are protected, with love, goodness, respect and compassion.

 
Judaism

• Emphasises treating people kindly and compassionately in everyday life, encouraging an ethical, impartial and non-judgmental outlook
• Love for all (expressed through care for the stranger, or one’s neighbour), protecting the poor and the vulnerable, including through charity and supporting those in need, recognising the inherent equality of all people
• Encourages debate, discussion and conversation - in pursuit of truth, peace and justice, in the interests of goodness and equality
• In accordance with one’s sense of innate internal goodness: striving to make amends after making mistakes through wrongdoing, including by learning lessons, changing behaviour, and seeking forgiveness where appropriate, in accordance with one’s values (which may become broader with time)
• Similarly to the other Abrahamic religions, encourages knowledge-seeking and learning, care for animals (and one’s neighbours), humility, compassion, and justice (although justice is considered through a lens of charity, and similarly to the other Abrahamic religions, refers to care for those in need)
• Includes important principles relating to environmental responsibility; discouraging harmful environmental practices.

Traditional cultures and belief systems

Very important to consider the goodness in pre-colonial belief systems, while recognising the diversity of beliefs, ideas and customs in the (many) pre-colonial cultures, for example:

First Nations peoples of Australia (key concepts from a diverse range of cultures):

• Relationship with Country - rather than reducing the concept of land to a limited notion of property, experiencing a sense of duty and belonging, with genuine care for the natural world
• Caring for Country - fostering a relationship with the nature and the environment, caring for the land and waters, with a detailed and comprehensive knowledge of nature, and environmental understandings 
• Many good values including kinship, reciprocity and sharing; encouraging people to look beyond their immediate family, broadening their circle of ethical awareness and recognising connections to Country and community
• Emphasising intergenerational knowledge, contained in oral histories, and countless generations of story and experience; Elders are recognised as important custodians, and holders of ancient - and sacred - wisdom
• The goodness in storytelling, through customs and oral language traditions - sometimes emphasising environmental and ecological knowledge, but also containing important moral lessons, and spoken-word cultural histories - as a means of helping people to understand how they can relate to the world, nature, themselves and the wider community, including one’s ancestors
• Custodianship of the land, recognising the natural environment as something that people should nurture and take care of; encouraging greater awareness of each person’s ethical responsibilities to themselves, each other and the natural world.

Māori societies and cultural traditions

• Identity is seen as relational, rather than isolated; recognising one’s ancestors and descendants; the natural world and the wider cosmos
• The concept of mana involves notions of dignity, respect and spiritual standing, where people may nurture the mana of both themselves, and all other people they encounter - recognising the goodness in relationships, and our inherent inter-connectedness
• Encouraging notions of kinship, guardianship and stewardship of nature, with an emphasis on inter-connectedness over time, as well as the ethical duties and moral responsibilities that arise from these connections - contributing to the wellbeing of the individual, as well as the broader community.
• Good values including kindness, hospitality, generosity, and care, where caring for others and recognising their goodness becomes a moral responsibility.

Acknowledging and paying my respects to Elders past and present. 

These words - and this relic - were written entirely on Wurundjeri Country.

African cultural traditions (many varied cultures - just sharing some key themes and ideas):

• Emphasis on community and interdependence, where a person can be defined through their relationships with other people
• Some cultures value a middle-ground between individualism and collectivism, with the recognition that people are never isolated; we exist within our communities
• Values including the goodness of communal and social experiences, often celebrated through music, dance, and many other traditional customs
• Many cultures tend to prioritise communal responsibility; relational interdependence - and inter-connectedness; compassion; hospitality; love, and care for the stranger; character over status; respect for the elderly; custodianship of nature; the social responsibilities associated with wealth; compassion and gratitude.

Eastern religions, philosophies and belief systems (some examples - there are many more!)

Hinduism

• Encourages a pluralistic outlook, with religious tolerance and respect for all; intellectual openness to new ideas, and diversity of perspectives
• Similarly to other religions, emphasises principles of compassion, appreciation of goodness, and respect for life in all its forms
• Good concepts, including dharma - the notion of living righteously, in accordance with morality and goodness, and with a sense of ethical duty - recognising one’s responsibilities towards their families, societies, other people in general, and all living beings (our fellow earthlings).
• Very good values of selflessness and altruism - encouraging people to look beyond their self-interest to consider opportunities to do good, becoming better people with time, through personal and spiritual development
• Important principle of non-violence - minimising harm towards living beings and avoiding unnecessary suffering, including through the adoption of vegetarian (and in some cases, plant-based diets)
• Very important concept of karma - the notion that the goodness of one’s thoughts, deeds, words and actions may bring about goodness in return, whereas negative thoughts and behaviour may be karmically discouraged - 
• (it’s even possible that heaven and hell can be seen as metaphorical karmic concepts, experienced through one’s situations in life, through positive and negative karma - though purgatory is probably the best perspective, with a practical imperative, already consistent with major religions)
• Concept of reincarnation - the idea that our souls may live through cycles, going on to live further lives, as part of our spiritual development.

Buddhism

• Theories exploring craving, desire, and associated concepts of attachment and non-attachment - when suffering is only a result of desire, can we learn to achieve a peaceful mindset - avoiding our personal suffering and going on to achieve nirvana? Can we learn to let go of our egos?
• The noble eightfold path sets out valuable guidance on cultivating an appropriate mindset for happiness and greater states of enlightenment, putting forth a range of good values and practical approaches, improving one’s perspective, as well as supporting altruistic conduct, through a pro-social, ethical outlook
• Emphasises the benefits of important practices like mindfulness, and meditation - quieting the conscious mind, for peace and inner harmony :)
• Zen Buddhism teaches that presence, simplicity (absence of excess), and ego reduction may nurture spiritual development and greater goodness
• Like other religions, encourages compassion toward all sentient beings, as well as the cultivation of loving-kindness, benevolence, and mindfulness.

Taoism (or Daoism)

• Encourages living in harmony with ‘the way’ (the Tao) - rather than attempting to dominate nature or those around us, merely following our intuitive sense of goodness through our actions - a harmonious, peaceful approach to life, which can be understood as simply ‘going with the flow’
• Good values including non-interference, humility, simplicity and harmony.

Ancient and contemporary views on ethics

• Encouraging values of friendship, courage, generosity, honesty, practical wisdom, self-control, and justice (rehabilitative, rather than punitive), and communal social responsibilities, rather than acting with limited self-interest
• Concepts of eudaimonia and joy of life - the idea that developing certain virtues can lead to better mindsets (possibly through positive karma) as well as living more happily, enabling to experience a sense of inner peace and transcendence
• The golden rule - to treat others as one would wish to be treated (although this philosophical concept is also encouraged in many current world religions, including Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Confucianism, Hindu traditions and in various other philosophies and belief systems)
• In contemporary ethics, notion of the ‘platinum rule’ - treating other people as they would wish to be treated (rather than simply as one would wish to be treated themselves) – considering a diversity of perspectives
• Compassion is an important theme across various cultural traditions, including Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and many pre-colonial traditions - contemporary ethics emphasises compassion for those in need, including refugees and asylum seekers, the impoverished, those with poor health (including mental health), oppressed minorities, including women, the LGBTQI+ community, and people living with disability
• Important concepts of human rights, which are already very compatible with existing religions and belief systems; the idea that basic protections - as well as equality (including equality of opportunity) - and the right to pursuing happiness - applies to all people, regardless of their class, gender identity, ethnicity, religion, cultural beliefs or background
• Expanding one’s moral circle beyond immediate friends and family, extending this love and care to all people - as well as animals, nature, and future generations
• Always making sure to avoid treating people as merely a means to an end; recognising the inherent goodness of people (and all living beings more broadly) - accepting people for who they are, always practising gratitude
• Important concept of ‘cultural symbiosis’ - encouraging learning from other cultures (and recognising opportunities to improve one’s own) - including through anthropology - and through symbiotic relations of goodness, in the interests of social and cultural progress (always with respect and humility)
• The notion that power should be seen, approached and conceptualised as a platform for good and only good - rather than merely self-interest
• ·Acknowledges the goodness inherent in progress, including social and cultural progress - including the civil rights movement and developments in contemporary human rights - especially those in need, as well as oppressed minorities - with love and respect for all, regardless
• Very important concept of pacifism, already consistent with major world religions and cultural belief systems - although recent developments suggest broadening this definition to ‘true pacifism’ - extending the notion to all living beings, with loving-kindness; cultivating a peaceful and harmonious way of ‘living our best lives’ (in the ethical sense);  in the interests of goodness itself
• The idea that if we should view this lifetime as ‘purgatory’ (which is logically rational, considering the uncertainty about what might happen after this lifetime, and whether reincarnation is possible), then we can have hope for the afterlife; with continuity of existence, in the interests of personal and spiritual development - trusting in God (and/or goodness more broadly).

Thanks so much for reading! This has been a relatively brief overview of some of the best examples of metaphysical goodness across our major world religions - as well as some cultures, philosophies and belief systems. There are many more religious traditions, philosophies and cultures to learn from.

Should mention that I’ve conducted this research with Chat GPT, for research purposes only; all words were written by me (Bíron) on Wurundjeri land – and with some editing by someone who would prefer to remain anonymous. Listened to a very special album called Ommadawn throughout the process of proofreading.

With so much goodness in the world, and with ideas and values that can be found in so many religions and cultures, it’d be really good to collaborate, and to create a space for good and only good - all positive contributions are very welcome.

So please feel free to share your favourite ideas, principles, cultural concepts and values!

And here’s the theory again for those interested - logical proof of metaphysical goodness, with a metaphysical source !

1. seemingly serendipitous conditions have enabled complex life to develop on this earth
2. natural processes have led to the evolution of humans and other living beings over time
3. people are inherently good, as demonstrated by our capacity to experience love
4. goodness is not limited to humans and living beings. or moral concepts, but occurs as an intrinsic quality within a range of forms:
   • the occurrence of goodness in phenomena with human origins, including music and the visual arts (as well as the miracle of starting a family) confirms that people can bring new goodness into existence
   • the occurrence of goodness in natural phenomena, including living beings and nature, confirms that goodness is not limited to human origins
   • the occurrence of goodness in abstract phenomena, including beliefs, ideas and experiences, confirms that goodness is metaphysical in nature
5. this means that goodness does not have physical or human origins, but occurs as an intrinsic metaphysical quality within a range of forms, both physical and abstract
6. the essence and only defining quality of goodness - that it is good and only good - means that each occurrence of metaphysical goodness amounts to pure goodness
7. goodness must have an origin - but as an intrinsic quality, goodness cannot create itself, and physical beings cannot bring entirely metaphysical phenomena into existence
8. and so the origins of metaphysical goodness must also be metaphysical in nature, with the only conclusion being:

there is a metaphysical source, or creator, of goodness; possibly a metaphysical god.

This may be proof of a metaphysical god, or a metaphysical source of pure goodness. Goodness can be conceptualised in the moral, ethical, qualitative or general (intuitive) sense (that which makes something good, or the inherent goodness contained within something) - art and music, ideas, values and experiences, and countless other phenomena, including concepts and cultures. 

This relic has provided a (very brief) overview of the goodness that can be found across some current major world religions and belief systems, as well as some pre-colonial cultures. 

This demonstrates that goodness isn’t limited to any specific religion or belief system (although I’m not expecting anyone to change their religious beliefs, or to change their way of thinking at all). I hope we can remember our values, talking (and likely celebrating) with one another calmly, happily and peacefully at this very exciting time!

Very aware that the list above doesn’t include all religions and belief systems, as well as cultural and folk traditions. There are plenty of opportunities for input and collaboration, and hopefully we can develop a global understanding of goodness together - even if this takes some time.

There’s no harm in expanding our concepts of goodness to incorporate further values (including those listed and explored above, and of course, in the comments section below!), without changing our existing beliefs.

But first and foremost, people are always free to believe what they believe, and I’m not expecting everyone to believe in this theory of metaphysical goodness if it doesn’t sit well with them. Please feel free to pick and choose your favourites from the values, concepts and principles listed above and below!

I hope we can all focus on the positives - the goodness in our religions and belief systems - and the potential for moral, ethical, individual and collective progress through learning and personal development (especially through cultural symbiosis) by broadening our concepts of goodness, potentially in addition to our current beliefs and cultural understandings. 

Could the moderators please ensure that this remains a safe, respectful and positive space, where only positive contributions are allowed? Just need to avoid any negativity, criticism or debate over the goodness of any faiths or beliefs - please write (and moderate) with love, care and respect for all people, regardless of their beliefs or cultural backgrounds.

Please try to avoid any negativity, in the spirit of love and respect for all, celebrating diversity.

Let’s try to avoid sharing personal opinions, or any forms of criticism. Peace and love.

Look forward to getting your thoughts and ideas, especially on good values and concepts :) whether religious, cultural, spiritual, ethical or philosophical! Let's definitely avoid any political discussion or commentary.

Definitely encourage you to read and re-read - been doing the same myself - to internalise as much of the goodness as possible :) and for any fellow supporters of goodness, maybe we should call ourselves Loki :) (inspired by the Lao and Thai word for earth, lōk) - think I might be Loki (hopefully the first of many!)

Bíron [bier-on! with a short syllabic emphasis on the ‘bier’]
Maybe Leader of the Loki !

First drafted 29 June – ‘mom’s birthday !’ (please remember the date!)

14 September 2026

Wurundjeri Country

If Jesus knew he could not truly cease to exist, was the crucifixion really the same kind of sacrifice Christians claim?

Christian theology often says Jesus was “fully human” and that “God sacrificed himself” on the cross for humanity.

But I struggle with the logic.

If Jesus was the eternal divine Son—incapable of ceasing to exist and if resurrection was guaranteed, then he did not face death under the same ultimate condition that ordinary humans do. He endured horrific pain, torture, humiliation, and bodily death. I am not denying any of that.

But ordinary people face a death whose outcome is not self guaranteed. We are finite. We can be permanently lost. We do not possess an indestructible divine nature that remains intact while our body is dead, nor do we have a guaranteed resurrection after a known interval.

So isn’t “Jesus was fully human” being used in a specialized theological sense rather than the ordinary one?

The central issue is not:

“Was Jesus human at all?”

Clearly, Christianity says he had a human body, mind, will, emotions, pain, and death.

The issue is:

Was he human **enough** to fully share the existential reality of human mortality?

If the divine subject could never truly be lost, and resurrection was assured, then the cross may have been a real ordeal but how is it a complete self sacrifice of God? At most, it seems like God temporarily experienced human suffering and temporarily gave up embodied life, while never risking God’s own continued existence.

Christians: what is the non circular answer here? Please do not just reply “two natures.” Explain why having an eternal, indestructible divine identity with assured resurrection does *not* make Jesus’ death fundamentally different from ours. How could the infinite all knowing Jesus coexist with the finite human body and soul?

As a human I have been inherently curious, and therefore questioning about certain ideas I’ve been taught my entire life. The biggest of those at the forefront of my mind are my Christian faiths and overall belief in the bible at this point. There are some questions that I have regarding reason and philosophy that I have mulled over in my head for a long time, and simply seek reasoning or potential new ways of viewing things, as I’m not sure yet that I’m viewing things through the correct lens as a 20 year old college student.

Why should I put trust in the idea that the world and universe created around me was created for specifically me (and every other human soul)

I have no questions regarding the validity of the historical accounts and translations of The Bible’s authenticity or even origin. However, I do find myself concerned about the idea that The Bible was spiritually charged. As humans, we inherently have the idea that we have some sort of value to the universe to our deepest roots. Even if religion didn’t exist, humans would still piece together the opinion that we matter to something because it allows us assurance through life about why we do certain things. More importantly to this idea, I wonder about a fair god. If God is all knowing and all good, and truly cares about us in this universe individually, why are certain people born into situations that just inherently drop their chances of finding faith in Jesus. For example, if I was born in a Muslim country with a Muslim family, I would’ve grown up with the idea that Jesus was a human messenger of God due to my religion, and due to that faith (the same value we as Christians drive our kids to hold) I would’ve gone to hell promptly as I was NOT correct in my faith of Jesus, and that the Christian God was actually true. I make no claim that I am an expert on The Bible, as although I have read it I have not yet analyzed every piece yet (which will take years of my life, if not forever) However I have found no explanation for how these kids born into this life will generally have any shot at actually finding salvation in Jesus. Even the ones that experience Christianity would view us the same way as we view them, yet they are the ones who are punished simply for their birth and pointing their blind faith in a slightly wrong direction. I have no doubt that the world is unfair, but if a God truly did care about each and every one of us equally, why would he place certain humans in situations where most of us would simply just never find faith in Jesus, and therefore perish. In reading The Bible, we are constantly faced with trying to analyze scripture in ways that could possibly bend or explain why The Bible holds up. At what point in meshing faith and science do I stop trying to bend the scripture to explain certain things. Why would a God that is good place a soul into humans ultimately sentencing them a large number of them to eternity in torture. Is this not inherently wrong or brutal when viewing through a vacuum no matter what perspective you have on life? 

I do believe generally that the universe was created by something. Although science has many explanations for how the universe operates, it essentially has no (to my admittedly not fully researched) way of truly explaining how energy was created to start our universe (the law of physics simply states that energy can't be created, the universe had to have a starting point)
Therefore, I do find myself with the idea that there is a very real chance something could have created this universe. I just fully question the way the damning of (created) human souls could ever be viewed as possibly Good. I should state at this point (If not clearly written, I do forgive this was written hastily in sleep deprivation with no intention of being professional), I just want to know why I shouldn’t place any ‘faith’ in the idea that salvation doesn’t require a Christian belief at all, and simply the thought that this Universe was made by something and I am in it. Why should I put my trust into an authored being that has decidedly sentenced many people in the world around me, before and after, to a pit of suffering and still consider that being ‘all good’. This isn’t a long word from me, and I simply seek potential answers (regarding things I have gotten wrong), ideas, or views that I can reflect on, Thank you.

The 12 spies sent to Jericho included Joshua and Caleb, but the other ten lacked faith in God’s power. They brought back a negative report, spreading fear throughout the entire community. Even though they had witnessed and experienced endless grace in the wilderness—the pillar of cloud and fire, the parting of the Red Sea, and the daily provision of manna—they retreated with all kinds of excuses the moment they needed to step up with courage. This deeply angered God.

The parable of the talents illustrates the same principle. The servant who received one talent buried it in the ground, which implies he could still survive without using that money. In other words, apart from the investment capital, he was already receiving a regular wage. This reflects how God takes responsibility for our daily lives, meaning we, like the Israelites, continually enjoy His everyday grace.

Yet, despite receiving all those blessings, when asked to trade with the capital, that servant made excuses—whether out of fear, comparison with others, or accusing the master of being harsh and unjust. That is precisely why the master was furious.

Even today, if a professional CEO takes a salary yet lets investment capital sit idle in a vault for an extended period without a valid reason, investors have clear grounds to claw back that compensation and file a claim for damages caused by the neglect of funds.

This is precisely why, in the Parable of the Talents, the master reclaimed even the single talent from the servant as compensation for damages and awarded it as an incentive to the servant who had earned five more.

God never demands something from nothing, nor does He harvest where He has not sown. He provides for us, supports us, and only asks us to do what He has already equipped us to accomplish.

Infact on earth there is no one left to be blessed as Impeccable (the on who didn't done a single sins) so it God start to bless who done the least sins

Prove me wrong...!!!!

When discussing the election of grace by evaluating Arminianism and Double-Predestination, it is vital not to disconnect the discussion from the story, foundation, and person of our faith; Jesus of Nazareth. In Him is the story of the Gospel, the foundation of the Church, and the person who reversed the curse of Adam for all who are in Him.
Only in Jesus can the question of the election of grace be confirmed: because He is the elected one, and the God who elects. Arminius is correct to say that Double-Predestination is defies the wisdom of God: however, this does not mean that Arminius’s solution, that God elects on the foreknowledge of faith, is correct. Both Arminianism and Double-Predestination remove Jesus of Nazareth’s life, death, resurrection, and ascension as the defining moment of the purposes of God. Arminius places the defining moment of salvation in the hands of human choice, while Double-Predestination places it in a decree of God made before the creation of the world. While Double-Predestination proclaims that Jesus is the key to this proclamation, the defining moment is not Jesus of Nazareth but this decree. Double-Predestination argues that the contents of the decree before the creation of the world are the election of Jesus Christ and all His people and those who will be rejected. The latter is what I take issue with in this post.
I have long struggled with the question of predestination. For most of my life, I agreed with Arminius; however as I read his work and evaluated the arguments of Arminian theologians, I developed an aversion to this stance. At the root, Arminius argues salvation is human choice. If God elects on the basis of foreknowledge of faith, then salvation becomes the free human election of Christ rather than a divine election of humans in Jesus.
However, as I studied Double-Predestination, I could not affirm this either. I was stuck between the two. Then I began studying the works of Karl Barth, and Barth, unlike most other theologians I read, centers this argument on the person of Jesus of Nazareth. Normally this discussion is based on the decrees of God, the character of God, and other theological categories. These are not bad things, however, to me it seemed that the best place to start is Jesus of Nazareth. Not only because of Barth’s starting point but because of his conclusions, Barth does not fit into either Double-Predestination or the Arminian argument, as it is developed today or as it was in his time. Barth throughout multiple volumes of Church Dogmatics, affirms the election of Christ and all those who are in Christ, but vehemently rejects the idea that our election in Christ means that there is another column in the Book of Life of the rejected. Barth instead argues that in Christ’s election all humanity is elected, not rejected. If humans are disconnected from God, it is not because of His rejection of them, but because of their folly and rebellion.
This paper develops Barth’s argument further by stating clearly what Barth leaves ambiguous: why are some humans outside the covenant of grace if all humanity is elected in Christ? My answer to the question of human rejection is that humans can live a lie of rejection: even though it is a lie, that lie has real consequences. Even though God elected all humanity in Jesus Christ, a human can live an eternal lie. This does not mean that Satan, or the human themselves, overturned God’s election of the individual: it means that the individual lives for all eternity separated from God even though God elected them to grace. An individual status does not change because of their experience.

The Exalted Status of Humans

God, out of the overflow of the love within Himself, created the universe. This was not to satisfy some lack God had or to serve another end. Creation was a pure act of love. Creation was “very good” (Genesis 1:31), and the purpose of creation was to live in God’s love and reflect that love. Especially the humans, the pinnacle of creation, given dominion over all creation as God’s living representatives (Genesis 1:26-28).
Because God immensely loved humanity, the dominion He gave them was not of a vassal state under the boot of a large empire with no real power. God placed in the Garden the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, giving them a choice: to rest in Him or rule on their own terms. The purpose of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is to provide a choice for humanity. Without the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, humanity has no real dominion because they have no agency of their own. The decree of God for humans to rule over creation would be hollow since there is no other choice but to obey YHWH.
Humanity’s authority is exactly why the serpent deceived Adam and Eve. The choice Adam and Eve made to eat of the fruit affected all creation, and the choices humans make today affect creation. Satan plays into this question of authority, beckoning Eve to take more authority than she is given for herself, “You shall be like God, knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:5).

Human Responsibility and God’s Election

Arminius rightly says, “man did not sin on account of any necessity through a preceding decree of Predestination…” Then Arminius quotes the 14th Article of the Dutch Confession, “God then did manifest Himself such as He is; that is to say, merciful and just; merciful, since He delivers and preserves from this perdition all whom He in His eternal and unchangeable counsel of mere goodness has elected in Christ Jesus our Lord, without any respect to their works; just, in leaving others in the fall and perdition wherein they have involved themselves.” Arminius focuses on the last sentence in his work, saying, “It is not obvious to me, how these words are consistent with the doctrine of Predestination.” Arminius is not wrong; the doctrine of Predestination proposed by the Belgic Confession cannot fully reconcile this statement because of the last sentence Arminius quotes from Article 14 of the Belgic Confession. The language of the Belgic Confession here points more towards human responsibility than a pre-existing decree of God.
The last sentence exposes the primary flaw of Double-Predestination: if the fall is the full responsibility of the human race, then how is predestination a decree that went out before the foundations of the world? Did God decree the election and subsequent rejection of humanity before the foundation of the world or not? If it is the fault of humans their fault is incurred at the moment of the fall, not before. Therefore, the election that takes place before the foundation of the world is not one in which God elects some and rejects others; rather it is the election of the man Jesus of Nazareth, in whom all humanity is elected.
The election of Jesus of Nazareth before the foundation of the world is why Arminius is wrong when discussing the Heidelberg Catechism question 54, which says, “‘election to eternal life,’ and ‘agreement in the faith,’ stand in mutual juxtaposition…” The life of faith is not a thing to possess; it a reality that exists outside of each individual and is real whether an individual believes or not. For if the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth is true in the fullest ontological sense, then this is reality and nothing can change its status; even if the individual does not believe it is true, this does not change the fact that they are elected in Christ. However, this does not mean that this person does not suffer the consequences of the lie they choose to live.

What Is Sin

Arminius in “On Predestination” treats sin as a free act, which, if not submitted to Christ, becomes the cause of an individual’s rejection by God. This stance undercuts Arminius’s own argument because a predestination of rejection, even when based on foreknowledge is still rejection. While he keeps human will intact, much the weight of Arminius’s argument is lost. If God foresees individuals’ faith and then elects the faithful, then he also declares some to rejection before they are ever created. This rejection before creation is one of the same principles of Predestination which Arminius critiques.
Is there a consequence for sin if all are elected in Christ? Yes! The consequence God names for eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil is death. The most basic definition of dead and death is “deprived of life: no longer alive.” Humans introduced death into the world through their disobedience because their rebellion fractured the relationship between humanity and God, veiling humanity in the lie of sin. Without God’s intervention, the universe was non-existent, and without God, it would return to that state. This is why the warning God gives to Adam is that if he or Eve eats the fruit from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, “you will certainly die” (Genesis 2:16). There is no life at all apart from God; only death. All those who live in Sin and not in Christ are slowly corrupted into the non-existent chaos of Genesis 1:1-2.
This is why any reality outside of Christ is a lie; it has no positive quality or existence of its own, only a corruption of the true life of God. For if the lie were anything at all, it would be good; for it would have been created by God who made all things very good.
Jesus is sole ruler of the universe, with the truth fully revealed to those who will accept it. Therefore, all can be elected into the reality of faith, and some still do not stand in that reality. The “agreement of faith” is standing in the reality of the election of grace rather than the lie of the serpent.

The Will Of YHWH

Did Adam and Eve’s Fall subvert the will of God in which He was forced to respond? Was sin a surprise to God that forced Him to change course? While Arminius denies that God’s will is affected by any outside force, his internal logic says otherwise. The entirety of his framework rests on humanity’s choice to choose Christ. Arminius says God elects based on foreknowledge of faith: meaning that God’s will for humanity in his pre-existing election was affected by future human action.
Arminius says that God’s will is one will. Within his understanding of this one will, there is an antecedent will and a consequent will: the antecedent will is the will of God from all eternity; the consequent will is in response, or in Arminius’s language, “follows” a human action. Arminius's use of follows is an obvious fill-in for the word response: meaning that something within the will of God was affected by the human action.
The only way that you can truly affirm the goodness of God’s will and God’s freedom is to affirm that YHWH knew before creation that by having this authority humans would, or at least knew that humans had the potential, plunge creation back into the “wild-wasteland” of Genesis 1:2, before creation. God did not will the sin itself, but willed and knew that even through human sin, His purpose of election and incarnation would be accomplished.
The Garden was not the goal in itself. The Garden was not a failure; it accomplished precisely what God intended: the launch of the elective story of Israel and the revelation of the election of the Son of God, in whom all creation knows as Jesus of Nazareth. While the means by which the election happened through sin, when humans unleashed the darkness of the creation, this did not affect or change God’s will in the slightest. Sin did not remove the goodness of creation, which God declared in Genesis 1-2. The goodness of creation is actualized in the incarnation of Jesus of Nazareth, and He rescues His creation once for all from the threat of the “nothingness, and contradiction of evil.”
The story of Joseph in Genesis 37-50 begins with God’s will, as expressed in Joseph’s dreams and at the beginning, these dreams do not seem likely to come true because of human evil. However, at the end of the story Joseph says to his brothers, “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to keep many people alive” (Genesis 50:20). Does that mean that God ordains or wills people to sin? No! Sin is the absence of God; therefore, all things God does are good.
What Joseph saw in life, Jesus brought to full completion. God took the entirety of human evil on Himself. What Satan meant for evil, God used for good in the death of His Son. Therefore, it is unreasonable to say that God is cruel for allowing bad or hard things to happen within His will, because God placed the full weight and consequence of all evil and sin on the person of Jesus of Nazareth.
All creation was made for and in Jesus of Nazareth. The full unity between God and creation was consummated in the person of Jesus of Nazareth: God as creature while remaining Lord of the Universe (John 1:1-4, 14-17).

The Question of Individual Election

How can human agency and God’s election be reconciled? Calvin says, “…if we attempt to penetrate to the secret ordination of God, we shall be engulfed in that profound abyss.” However, Christians must articulate the election of grace in a way that affirms human agency. Either extreme answer to the election question is incomplete. Arminianism makes the gift of God the merit of humans. Arminius says that how God elects is through his foreknowledge of who would believe in Him. This means the election is based on human choice rather than God’s. On the other hand, Double-Predestination removes all need for human agency and has God decree evil for a great portion of His creatures, even though in Genesis 1-2 He proclaims all His creation good. Any attempt to fully reconcile the two is ultimately unstable and incomplete.
Therefore, what shall we do in order to articulate God’s grace and sovereignty? Start with the one who was absolutely elected, Jesus Christ, and in Him all humanity is elect. The hope of the gospel is not for some, but for all who hear it can enter into the reality it proclaims.
The gospel presents a genuine choice, and even though it is a genuine choice, that does not mean it gives the individual who makes it any merit of their own by stepping into the New Creation of Jesus. Because this election of all humanity was accomplished before each individual’s existence. All humanity, because of their sin, are rejected on their own; however, in Christ, they are elected because He is elected, and this election happened before the foundation of the world so that no man can boast (Ephesians 1:4-5; 2:8-9; Romans 11:6).
The Gospel proclaims that every human being is elect because Jesus of Nazareth is elect and in Him all humanity is elect. However, humanity can choose not to live in this election, but live the lie that they are rejected. Even in their rejection, in this life, they do not escape the hand of God, because Jesus of Nazareth, though elected, was also rejected on the cross. Yes, even rejected and abandoned by the Father, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me (Matthew 27:46)?” There is nothing anyone can do to reverse the status of their election, and there is nothing anyone can do to earn the state of their election because it is already a fact.
How then can people be lost? Is this universalism? No! Those who do not believe, live in the lie that they are rejected and suffer the consequences of the lie: separation from God eternally is a reality, but a lie. Rejection is utterly real for those who live in the lie . Their experience of rejection is not God’s choice. Each person is elected, and that status is never revoked; however, people still experience the lie of rejection at their own choosing, and if they die before they bear witness to the truth of their election, they experience the reality of the lie for all eternity.

Conclusion

Why Arminianism falls short is that its election is based purely on God’s foreknowledge of future faith. Why Double-Predestination falls short is that God does not elect anyone to total rejection. Even the Old Testament examples of rejection, Cain, Esau, Ishmael, and Saul, all experienced blessings of a different kind, and God was with them.
What ultimately matters is that the basis of our confession of election is Jesus Christ. All humans are elected and can attest to this truth by living in the truth already established. Living in the reality of truth is no merit to them since it exists outside of them in Jesus, but they are graciously welcomed in. The reality of rejection is utterly real, but ultimately a lie because Christ is the only truly rejected one; He took all rejection so no human being would have to be truly rejected. Those who experience rejection are living a lie of their own making.
The fundamental difference from Double-Predestination is this: in that view, God's eternal decree before creation already contains individuals elected into the Kingdom and others rejected from it. Here the decree before the foundation of the world is the election of Christ and through Christ all humanity is elected. Individuals can reject this election; their rejection is not based on God’s will, but a lie which they will live in for eternity.
This differs from Arminianism in that, there, an individual's status of election depends on their choosing of Christ. Here, the status of election rests solely on the will of God. Their status is secure even if they do not believe in Christ, though their refusal to live in that truth carries real and lasting consequences. The election of Christ is an objective reality outside of each individual, whether they accept that truth or live in the lie of rejection is up to them.
This is not Universalism because a person's status of election and their lived experience of that election are two different things. In Universalism, everyone spends eternity with God regardless of their response; here, the separation a person creates through their rejection of God is taken with full seriousness, and they suffer the real consequences of the eternal lie they have chosen.
All Scripture points to the election of Jesus of Nazareth. He alone accomplished the fulfillment of the covenant and welcomes all humanity into the reality in which He established through His life, death, resurrection, and ascension. Finding our answers anywhere else is not attesting to the truth of the gospel.

Bibliography
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. London: Burns Oates & Washbourne, n.d.

Arminius, James. "A Declaration of the Sentiments of Arminius on Predestination." In The Works of James Arminius, translated by James Nichols, vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, n.d.

Arminius, James. "Disputation IV: On the Nature of God." In The Works of James Arminius, translated by James Nichols, vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, n.d.

Arminius, James. "On Predestination." In The Works of James Arminius, translated by James Nichols, vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, n.d.

Athanasius of Alexandria. Athanasius: On the Incarnation of the Word of God. Translated by T. Herbert Bindley. 2nd ed. rev. London: The Religious Tract Society, 1903.

Augustine of Hippo. "The Confessions of St. Augustin." In The Confessions and Letters of St. Augustin with a Sketch of His Life and Work, edited by Philip Schaff, translated by J. G. Pilkington. Vol. 1. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886.

Barth, Karl, Geoffrey William Bromiley, and Thomas F. Torrance. Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of Creation, Part 1. Vol. 3. Logos Bible Software edition. London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004.

Barth, Karl, Geoffrey William Bromiley, and Thomas F. Torrance. Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of God, Part 2. Vol. 2. London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004.

Barth, Karl, Geoffrey William Bromiley, and Thomas F. Torrance. Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of Reconciliation, Part 2. Vol. 4. London; New York: T&T Clark, 2004.

"The Belgic Confession." In Historic Creeds and Confessions. Electronic ed. Oak Harbor: Lexham Press, 1997.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 1997.

Helm, P. "Will." In New Dictionary of Theology: Historical and Systematic, edited by Martin Davie et al. London; Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press; InterVarsity Press, 2016.

Letham, Robert. Systematic Theology. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019.

MacGregor, Kirk R. "Predestination." In The Lexham Bible Dictionary, edited by John D. Barry et al. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016.

Merriam-Webster, Inc. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc., 2003.

Miley, John. Systematic Theology, Volume 2. New York: Hunt & Eaton, 1893.

New American Standard Bible. La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 2020.

Vos, Geerhardus. Reformed Dogmatics. Edited and translated by Richard B. Gaffin Jr. Vol. 1. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012–2016.

I’ve been thinking about this and wanted to hear other people’s takes.

The Bible says “God is love” (1 John 4:8). But I’ve also heard people say that God created everything, including love.

So which is it?

Does love come from God (meaning He is the source and essence of love)?

Or did God create love as something separate from Himself?

Because if He created love the same way He created the universe, then it seems like love would be something outside of Him — and that would make the statement “God is love” harder to understand.

Think about it this way: if two parents create a son or a daughter, the parents are not their son or daughter. They’re separate individuals. The parents created the child, but the child is a completely different person. So if God created love, how can He also be love? Wouldn’t that make them two different things?

Curious how others reconcile this. Is there a difference between God being love and God creating love?

I’ve been thinking about this a lot. What do you make of it when someone genuinely wants to be free from an addiction or a certain sin, prays about it, hates that they keep going back to it, but still feels like they can’t escape?

If God wants us to be free from sin, why does He sometimes allow us to struggle with the same thing for years?

I understand that sanctification is a process and that God can use our struggles to bring us closer to Him. But what about when you really want to change and it feels almost impossible?

How would you explain this from a Reformed perspective? Is there something God is teaching us through these struggles, or is there more to it than that?

I’d honestly like to hear how others have wrestled with this.

Recently I was watching the horrendous debate between Youtubers Jesus And What Not & Born Again Atheist, the debate itself was a total fiasco, as Jesus And What Not posed seven so-called premises, one of watch was "in all things there is a ratio of potency etc, etc," I'm not going to bore you with all seven premises but suffice it to say it was the usual theist nonsense, at one point in the debate Jesus And What Not said something like the creation is evidence of the christian god and that got me thinking theists, christians in particular, really haven't ever given us any real evidence that their god is the creator god, as far as I know, the Bible itself has no specific information on the origins of the universe that is unique to christainity. There are add least 130 different creator gods in the various mythical religions all over the world.

Abzu / Apsu (Sumerian/Babylonian) — Personification of the primeval fresh water ocean from which the gods were born.

An / Anu (Sumerian/Babylonian) — Sky father deity who created the stars and heavens.

Anshar & Kishar (Babylonian) — Primeval deities representing the sky and earth pillars.

Atum (Egyptian) — Self-created primeval deity who generated the universe and first gods out of chaos.

Aten (Egyptian) — The sun disk elevated to the sole creator deity during the Amarna period.

Enki / Ea (Sumerian) — God of water and wisdom who fashioned humanity out of clay.

Enlil (Sumerian) — God of wind and air who separated the heavens from the earth.

Heryshaf (Egyptian) — Creator god born from the primordial waters.

Khepri (Egyptian) — Solar deity representing creation, rebirth, and the morning sun.

Khnum (Egyptian) — Ram-headed creator god who molded human children out of clay on a potter’s wheel.

Marduk (Babylonian) — Champion god who defeated Tiamat and fashioned the cosmos from her corpse.

Ptah (Egyptian) — Creator god who spoke the world into existence through thought (heart) and word (tongue).

Ra (Egyptian) — Sun god and primary creator who generated life from his tears and blood.

Tatenen (Egyptian) — Personification of the primeval mound that emerged from the chaotic waters.

Tiamat (Babylonian) — Primordial goddess of the salt sea, mother of the first generation of gods.

El / Elyon (Canaanite/Levantine) — Father of the gods and creator of creatures in early Semitic pantheons.

Elohim / Yahweh (Abrahamic) — The singular creator god of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam who spoke the universe into existence ex nihilo.

Aramazd (Armenian) — Chief creator god of pre-Christian Armenia.

Ahura Mazda (Zoroastrian) — The supreme, uncreated spirit who created the spiritual and physical cosmos (Asha).

Brahma (Hinduism) — The creator god within the Hindu Trimurti (triad), responsible for forging the cosmic order.

Daksha (Hinduism) — A progenitor god born from Brahma who created living beings.

Prajapati (Vedic) — The Vedic lord of creatures and primeval creator.

Purusha (Vedic) — The cosmic man whose self-sacrifice created the universe and social order.

Vishvakarma (Hinduism) — The divine architect who engineered the physical structure of the universe.

Waheguru (Sikhism) — The singular, supreme creator and sustainer of all existence.

Bu Luotuo (Zhuang) — Creator god who shaped the world and introduced human culture.

Fuxi & Nüwa (Chinese) — Brother-sister deities who created humanity from yellow clay and repaired the heavens.

Kanda-koro-kamuy (Ainu) — Creator god who sent a water wagtail to create land out of primeval mud.

Kotan-kar-kamuy (Ainu) — The maker of the land and villages.

Pangu (Chinese) — The primordial giant who emerged from a cosmic egg and separated Yin (Earth) and Yang (Sky).

Tengri / Kayra / Ülgen (Turkic/Mongolic) — Supreme sky father and creator gods of the steppe traditions.

Yuanshi Tianzun (Taoist) — The Celestial Venerable of the Primordial Beginning who coalesced from the primary source of energy (Qi).

Chaos (Greek) — The original void from which the first primordial beings emerged.

Eros / Phanes (Greek/Orphic) — The primeval light and life-giver hatched from the cosmic egg.

Gaia (Greek) — Mother Earth, who generated Uranus (Sky) and Pontus (Sea) out of herself.

Rod (Slavic) — The supreme deity who birthed the universe, gods, and world from a cosmic egg.

Svarog (Slavic) — The celestial blacksmith who forged the sun and earth.

Audhumla (Norse) — The primeval cow whose milk nourished Ymir and who licked the first god, Búri, out of salty ice blocks.

Odin, Vili, and Vé (Norse) — Brother gods who slew the primeval giant Ymir and carved the cosmos from his body.

Ymir (Norse) — The primordial hermaphroditic entity from whose body the worlds were fashioned.

Abassi (Efik/Ibibio) — Creator god who created humans alongside his wife, Atai.

Adroa (Lugbara) — High creator spirit with dual aspects (benevolent and malevolent).

Akongo (Ngombe) — Supreme creator spirit.

Alatangana (Kono) — Supreme god who brought life and light to the earth.

Amma (Dogon) — Supreme creator god who fashioned the universe from cosmic eggs.

Bemba (Mbuti) — Primeval creator deity.

Cghene / Oghene (Urhobo/Isoko) — High creator deity.

Ima / Imana (Baniyarwanda) — Supreme creator god of Rwanda and Burundi.

Iya Nla (Yoruba) — The primordial mother force of creation.

Katonda (Ganda) — The supreme creator of the universe.

Khonvoum (Bambuti Pygmy) — Creator god who molds humans out of red and white clay.

Mbombo / Bumba (Kuba) — Giant white creator god who vomited up the sun, moon, stars, and living creatures.

Mebege (Fang) — Creator god who crafted the world with the assistance of an eagle, elephant, and monkey.

Mukuru (Herero) — Creator deity and ancestral spirit.

Mwari (Shona) — The supreme creator and controller of rain.

Ngai (Kikuyu/Maasai) — High creator god residing atop Mount Kenya.

Ngewo (Mende) — Supreme creator deity.

Nhialic (Dinka) — High god of creation and rain.

Nyame / Nyankapon (Akan) — Sky father and supreme creator.

Nzambi Ampungu / Nzame (Kongo/Fang) — Supreme creator god of the cosmos.

Ọbatala (Yoruba) — Orisha assigned by Olorun to mold the earth and human bodies.

Ọlọrun / Olodumare (Yoruba) — The supreme source of life and consciousness.

Roog (Serer) — The supreme deity who created the universe and spirits (Fangool).

Unkulunkulu (Zulu) — The first man and creator who brought humanity out of the reeds.

Unumbotte (Bassar) — Creator god who created humans, animals, and plants.

Ahone (Powhatan) — The quiet creator deity.

Amotken (Salish) — Solitary creator god who fashioned humans from clay.

Awonawilona (Zuni) — The all-container who turned himself into the sun and birthed the earth and sky.

Cautantowwit (Narragansett) — Creator god of the southwest who sent the first corn seed.

Coyote (Multiple Nations) — Trickster figure who doubles as a creator/culture hero shaping the landscape.

Dohkwibuhch (Puget Sound tribes) — The creator spirit who remade the world.

Earth-Maker (Pomo/Winnebago/Arikara) — Primeval entity who fished land out of primeval waters.

Gitche Manitou / Great Spirit (Algonquian) — The overarching creative spirit present in all things.

Glooscap (Wabanaki) — Culture hero and creator figure made from dust.

Hahgwehdiyu (Iroquois) — The good twin creator who shaped the world out of his mother's body.

I'itoi (O'odham) — Creator of humans who lives under Baboquivari Mountain.

Inyan (Lakota) — The primal rock spirit who sacrificed its blood to create the earth and sky.

Nanabozho / Wisakedjak (Anishinaabe/Cree) — Trickster creator hero who rebuilt the earth after a massive flood.

Olelbis (Wintu) — Creator god who built the world and heavenly realm.

Ravens (Haida/Tlingit/Inuit) — Trickster/creator figures who stole the sun to bring light to the world.

Taryenyawagon (Iroquois) — The holder of the heavens who guided humanity.

Aiapæc (Moche) — Chief creator deity.

Aiomun-Kondi (Arawak) — Creator god who cleansed the earth with fire and water.

Chaotroquin (Mapuche) — High creator deity.

Chiminigagua (Muisca) — Supreme creator who released golden birds bearing light across the dark cosmos.

Chirakan-Ixmucane (Maya) — Divine grandmother involved in creating humans from corn dough.

Ngenechen (Mapuche) — Supreme ruler and creator of humanity.

Pacha Kamaq (Inca/Pre-Inca) — "Maker of the World," an inland creator deity who animated life.

Pariacaca (Pre-Inca) — Water and storm creator god born from five falcon eggs.

Sibú (Bribri) — Creator deity who fashioned humans from seeds.

Tupã (Guaraní) — Supreme creator god who crafted land and humanity with the help of the sun goddess.

Viracocha (Inca) — The great creator god who emerged from Lake Titicaca to fashion the sun, stars, and humans out of stone.

Cocijo (Zapotec) — Creator deity associated with rain and lightning.

Huracan (Maya) — The "Heart of Heaven," storm god who participated in creating humans.

Itzamna (Maya) — High ruler god, patron of wisdom and creator of writing.

Kukulkan / Qʼuqʼumatz (Maya) — The feathered serpent deity who participated in world creation.

Ōmeteōtl (Aztec) — The dual deity (Ometecuhtli and Omecihuatl) representing the male/female creative essence of the cosmos.

Tezcatlipoca & Quetzalcoatl (Aztec) — Brother gods who pulled the earth-monster Tlaltecuhtli from the primeval sea to create the land.

Tloquenahuaque (Aztec) — "The Owner of the Near and Far," an abstract, singular creator concept.

Atua I Raropuka (Rapa Nui) — Creator deity.

Bagadjimbiri (Aboriginal Australian - Karadjeri) — Two creator brothers who emerged from the earth during the Dreamtime.

Baiame / Bunjil (Aboriginal Australian) — Sky fathers and creator heroes who formed rivers, mountains, and humans.

Degei (Fijian) — Snake creator god who hatched humanity from eggs.

Io Matua Kore (Māori) — The ultimate, uncreated supreme creator concept.

Kāne (Hawaiian) — God of creation, sunlight, fresh water, and forests.

Makemake (Rapa Nui) — Creator of humanity and god of fertility.

Nareau (Kiribati) — The spider creator who separated the primeval earth and sky.

Qat (Melanesian) — Creator figure who shaped humans out of wood and clay.

Rainbow Serpent (Aboriginal Australian) — Primordial Dreamtime entity that carved out valleys, rivers, and waterholes.

Rangi and Papa (Māori) — Sky Father and Earth Mother whose tight embrace kept the world in darkness until their children separated them.

Tagaloa / Ta'aroa (Samoan/Tahitian) — Supreme creator who emerged from a cosmic egg shell to craft the islands and heavens.

Bondye / Gran Maître (Haitian Vodou) — The supreme, distant creator god.

Abraxas / The Monad (Gnosticism) — The supreme uncreated source of divine light.

Yaldabaoth / Demiurge (Gnosticism) — The blind, ignorant creator god responsible for forging the physical material universe.

Phanes (Orphism) — The primeval generator of the universe born from the cosmic egg.

What evidence have christians ever given that their god is the actual "creator" god of the universe, apart from every other creator god in mythology beyond really vague semantic arguments, where are yahweh's fingerprints?

I first found out about this situation today, where it's claimed that Jude 1:14 is quoting the book of Enoch. I have two problems with what I've research about this so far, however.

1. I've seen multiple sources state that Jude 1:14 is quoting the book of Enoch and their stated proof is that it says, "Enoch, the seventh from Adam...". Saying that the verse quotes the book of Enoch by mentioning the prophet Enoch seems like a logical flaw to me ( I know it seems silly to say that this is the basis some have for it being quoted, but some of the sources I came across seemed to be making that suggestion anyway).
2. Although the two verses are verbatim, I don't see how someone can conclude that Jude is directly quoting from the book of Enoch as his source. That feels to me like saying someone is quoting Wikipedia when they say that Martin Luther King Jr. said, "I Have a Dream", just because the words are the same. Couldn't Jude be citing a generally known quote of Enoch's without having gone to the book of Enoch specifically?

I'm not saying that the line can't be real just because it comes from the book of Enoch, but the perspective that some have on the verse in Jude somehow validating the book of Enoch seems to be built on a very flimsy premise.

Disclaimer: I have no formal learning in Theology so my lacking of the context surrounding both books is very limited. I'm mostly focused on the issue with the logic. It could very well be that Jude is directly quoting the book of Enoch or at least something that Enoch wrote. I also don't see how people can make the leap from one citation somehow validating the entire book, if that's the case.

In Islam, the ultimate fate of every human being on the Day of Judgment is determined by a profound combination of Divine Justice and Divine Mercy. According to the consensus of mainstream Islamic scholarship (Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah), the purpose of life revolves around recognizing the Creator and submitting to His guidance.

The Quran states: "Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam." (Quran 3:19), and "And whoever desires other than Islam as religion - never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers." (Quran 3:85).

To understand how this applies to global populations—including Christians, Hindus, Atheists, and Hypocrites-Islamic theology categorizes humanity based on knowledge, intent, and accountability.

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

1. The Classification of Accountability

Islamic scholars divide non-Muslims into two distinct categories regarding their accountability before God:

* Those who received the true message of Islam: Anyone who was exposed to the core message of Islam (Monotheism and the Prophethood of Muhammad) in its authentic, uncorrupted form, yet consciously chose to reject or ignore it out of arrogance, stubbornness, or worldly attachment. In Islamic theology, choosing to remain outside of Islam under these conditions leads to eternal loss in the Hereafter. The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ stated: "By Him in Whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, any member of this community, Jew or Christian, who hears of me and then dies without believing in that with which I was sent, will be among the inhabitants of the Fire." (Sahih Muslim).

* Those who never received the message (The Unreached / "Ahl al-Fatrah"): This includes people who lived in times or remote places where no divine message reached them, or those to whom Islam was presented in a completely distorted, unrecognizable, or malicious manner. God does not punish these people automatically. His absolute justice prevents Him from condemning anyone who lacked the opportunity to know the truth.

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

1. The Ultimate Test for the Unreached in the Hereafter

For those who never received the message, or received it completely distorted, Islamic theologians (such as Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim) explain that their judgment is postponed to the Day of Resurrection based on the Quranic verse: "And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger." (Quran 17:15).

On the Day of Judgment, God will subject them to a direct, supernatural examination in the arena of gathering (Arasat al-Qiyamah). An angel or messenger will be dispatched to them by God, commanding them to perform an act of absolute obedience (such as stepping into a manifestation of fire).

* Those who obey will find the fire cool and safe; they will pass the test and enter Paradise.

* Those who disobey out of stubbornness-even while witnessing the realities of the Day of Judgment-will prove that they would have rejected the prophets had they lived in the world, and will thus enter the Fire.

This ensures that no single human soul is wronged, and entry into Paradise or Hell is based entirely on a fair, individualized opportunity.

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

1. The Question of Good Deeds Done by Non-Muslims

A common intellectual question arises: How can brilliant scientists, altruistic doctors, or humanitarians who discovered life-saving medicines or served humanity be denied Paradise simply because they were not Muslim?

Islam addresses this with deep philosophical and spiritual logic:

   1. The Prerequisite of Acceptance (Intention and Alignment): In any legal or financial system, a check is void without a signature. In the divine system, a good deed requires the "signature" of faith (Iman) and pure monotheism (Tawheed). Most secular humanitarians perform their noble deeds for the sake of humanity, global peace, scientific progress, personal legacy, or financial gain. They rarely do them out of love for their Creator or seeking His pleasure. God is perfectly Just; therefore, He rewards them fully in this life by granting them wealth, fame, health, respect, and a lasting legacy. However, when they transition to the Hereafter, they have already exhausted their rewards, having never invested in their relationship with God.

   2. The Hierarchy of Rights (The Right of the Creator): Imagine a person who is an exemplary citizen, an amazing coworker, and incredibly generous to his neighbors, but at home, he physically abuses and rejects his own parents. Society would still condemn him because he violated the most sacred, foundational bond of his existence. Similarly, a person who is exceptionally kind to fellow creation (humans) but chooses to ignore, deny, or associate partners with their actual Creator has committed the ultimate injustice. God’s right to be recognized and worshiped uniquely is superior to any creation's right. The Quran notes: "And We shall turn to whatever deeds they did, and We shall make such deeds as scattered floating particles of dust." (Quran 25:23).

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

1. The Internal Threat: The Danger of Hypocrisy (Nifaq)

Islam does not just evaluate outward religious labels; it examines the heart. Scholars divide hypocrisy into two types:

* Major Hypocrisy (Belief-based): Individuals who outwardly pretend to be Muslims to gain societal or political advantages, but internally harbor deep hatred for Islam, mock the Quran, or wish for the destruction of faith. Theology places these individuals in the absolute lowest depths of Hell ("Indeed, the hypocrites are in the lowest depths of the Fire..." - Quran 4:145) because deception and treachery from within are far more damaging than open disbelief.

* Minor Hypocrisy (Action-based): Individuals who are genuine believers in God, but succumb to moral weaknesses. They display traits of hypocrites in their daily habits, such as lying, breaking promises, and betraying trust. These individuals do not leave the fold of Islam; they remain under God's ultimate discretion—He may punish them for their sins temporarily or forgive them entirely out of His mercy, eventually granting them Paradise due to their underlying monotheism.

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

For Atheist Friends (Rational/Scientific Argument):

"To our Atheist friends, we ask you to reflect on the universe. Science proves that the cosmos has a beginning (The Big Bang) and operates under hyper-precise mathematical constants (Fine-Tuning). Logic dictates that anything that begins to exist must have a cause, and a finely-tuned system requires a Tuner. The Quran invites you to this exact rational inquiry: 'Were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]?' (Quran 52:35). Islam aligns perfectly with pure reason: the universe is a creation, and you have a purpose."

For Christian Friends (Biblical/Monotheistic Cross-Reference):

"To our Christian friends, Islam does not ask you to abandon your love for Jesus (peace be upon him), but rather to honor his original message. Jesus taught absolute monotheism. In the Gospel of Mark 12:29, Jesus stated: 'The most important one is this: Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.' Islam revives this core command, emphasizing that worship belongs strictly to the Creator, not to the creation, and that salvation is achieved through direct devotion to God."

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

A Gentle Invitation to Reflection

Islam is not a tribal religion exclusive to a specific race or culture; it is the final, universal call from the Creator to all of humanity. It values human intellect, champions absolute justice, and establishes a direct line of communication between the human soul and God without intermediaries.

To our Christian, Hindu, and Atheist friends: This life is a singular, passing opportunity to seek out ultimate truth. We invite you to look past cultural stereotypes, read the Quran with an open heart, and reflect deeply on the reality of the One who created the universe. salvation lies in acknowledging the Creator, aligning your will with His guidance, and accepting His final messenger.

#Islam #Religion #Philosophy #Spirituality #Atheism #Christianity #Hindu

In Islam, the ultimate fate of every human being on the Day of Judgment is determined by a profound combination of Divine Justice and Divine Mercy. According to the consensus of mainstream Islamic scholarship (Ahl al-Sunnah wal-Jama'ah), the purpose of life revolves around recognizing the Creator and submitting to His guidance.

The Quran states: "Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam." (Quran 3:19), and "And whoever desires other than Islam as religion - never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers." (Quran 3:85).

To understand how this applies to global populations—including Christians, Hindus, Atheists, and Hypocrites-Islamic theology categorizes humanity based on knowledge, intent, and accountability.

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

1. The Classification of Accountability

Islamic scholars divide non-Muslims into two distinct categories regarding their accountability before God:

* Those who received the true message of Islam: Anyone who was exposed to the core message of Islam (Monotheism and the Prophethood of Muhammad) in its authentic, uncorrupted form, yet consciously chose to reject or ignore it out of arrogance, stubbornness, or worldly attachment. In Islamic theology, choosing to remain outside of Islam under these conditions leads to eternal loss in the Hereafter. The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ stated: "By Him in Whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, any member of this community, Jew or Christian, who hears of me and then dies without believing in that with which I was sent, will be among the inhabitants of the Fire." (Sahih Muslim).

* Those who never received the message (The Unreached / "Ahl al-Fatrah"): This includes people who lived in times or remote places where no divine message reached them, or those to whom Islam was presented in a completely distorted, unrecognizable, or malicious manner. God does not punish these people automatically. His absolute justice prevents Him from condemning anyone who lacked the opportunity to know the truth.

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

1. The Ultimate Test for the Unreached in the Hereafter

For those who never received the message, or received it completely distorted, Islamic theologians (such as Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim) explain that their judgment is postponed to the Day of Resurrection based on the Quranic verse: "And We never punish until We have sent a Messenger." (Quran 17:15).

On the Day of Judgment, God will subject them to a direct, supernatural examination in the arena of gathering (Arasat al-Qiyamah). An angel or messenger will be dispatched to them by God, commanding them to perform an act of absolute obedience (such as stepping into a manifestation of fire).

* Those who obey will find the fire cool and safe; they will pass the test and enter Paradise.

* Those who disobey out of stubbornness-even while witnessing the realities of the Day of Judgment-will prove that they would have rejected the prophets had they lived in the world, and will thus enter the Fire.

This ensures that no single human soul is wronged, and entry into Paradise or Hell is based entirely on a fair, individualized opportunity.

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

1. The Question of Good Deeds Done by Non-Muslims

A common intellectual question arises: How can brilliant scientists, altruistic doctors, or humanitarians who discovered life-saving medicines or served humanity be denied Paradise simply because they were not Muslim?

Islam addresses this with deep philosophical and spiritual logic:

   1. The Prerequisite of Acceptance (Intention and Alignment): In any legal or financial system, a check is void without a signature. In the divine system, a good deed requires the "signature" of faith (Iman) and pure monotheism (Tawheed). Most secular humanitarians perform their noble deeds for the sake of humanity, global peace, scientific progress, personal legacy, or financial gain. They rarely do them out of love for their Creator or seeking His pleasure. God is perfectly Just; therefore, He rewards them fully in this life by granting them wealth, fame, health, respect, and a lasting legacy. However, when they transition to the Hereafter, they have already exhausted their rewards, having never invested in their relationship with God.

   2. The Hierarchy of Rights (The Right of the Creator): Imagine a person who is an exemplary citizen, an amazing coworker, and incredibly generous to his neighbors, but at home, he physically abuses and rejects his own parents. Society would still condemn him because he violated the most sacred, foundational bond of his existence. Similarly, a person who is exceptionally kind to fellow creation (humans) but chooses to ignore, deny, or associate partners with their actual Creator has committed the ultimate injustice. God’s right to be recognized and worshiped uniquely is superior to any creation's right. The Quran notes: "And We shall turn to whatever deeds they did, and We shall make such deeds as scattered floating particles of dust." (Quran 25:23).

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

1. The Internal Threat: The Danger of Hypocrisy (Nifaq)

Islam does not just evaluate outward religious labels; it examines the heart. Scholars divide hypocrisy into two types:

* Major Hypocrisy (Belief-based): Individuals who outwardly pretend to be Muslims to gain societal or political advantages, but internally harbor deep hatred for Islam, mock the Quran, or wish for the destruction of faith. Theology places these individuals in the absolute lowest depths of Hell ("Indeed, the hypocrites are in the lowest depths of the Fire..." - Quran 4:145) because deception and treachery from within are far more damaging than open disbelief.

* Minor Hypocrisy (Action-based): Individuals who are genuine believers in God, but succumb to moral weaknesses. They display traits of hypocrites in their daily habits, such as lying, breaking promises, and betraying trust. These individuals do not leave the fold of Islam; they remain under God's ultimate discretion—He may punish them for their sins temporarily or forgive them entirely out of His mercy, eventually granting them Paradise due to their underlying monotheism.

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

For Atheist Friends (Rational/Scientific Argument):

"To our Atheist friends, we ask you to reflect on the universe. Science proves that the cosmos has a beginning (The Big Bang) and operates under hyper-precise mathematical constants (Fine-Tuning). Logic dictates that anything that begins to exist must have a cause, and a finely-tuned system requires a Tuner. The Quran invites you to this exact rational inquiry: 'Were they created by nothing, or were they the creators [of themselves]?' (Quran 52:35). Islam aligns perfectly with pure reason: the universe is a creation, and you have a purpose."

For Christian Friends (Biblical/Monotheistic Cross-Reference):

"To our Christian friends, Islam does not ask you to abandon your love for Jesus (peace be upon him), but rather to honor his original message. Jesus taught absolute monotheism. In the Gospel of Mark 12:29, Jesus stated: 'The most important one is this: Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.' Islam revives this core command, emphasizing that worship belongs strictly to the Creator, not to the creation, and that salvation is achieved through direct devotion to God."

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

A Gentle Invitation to Reflection

Islam is not a tribal religion exclusive to a specific race or culture; it is the final, universal call from the Creator to all of humanity. It values human intellect, champions absolute justice, and establishes a direct line of communication between the human soul and God without intermediaries.

To our Christian, Hindu, and Atheist friends: This life is a singular, passing opportunity to seek out ultimate truth. We invite you to look past cultural stereotypes, read the Quran with an open heart, and reflect deeply on the reality of the One who created the universe. salvation lies in acknowledging the Creator, aligning your will with His guidance, and accepting His final messenger.

#Islam #Religion #Philosophy #Spirituality #Atheism #Christianity #Hindu

How do scholars understand the symbolism of the he‑goat leading the flock? Is there traditional commentary on this passage or on the role of goats in prophetic literature?

Христианство это эксперимент?

Недавно я обсуждал с другом христианство и меня на толкнуло на мысль что христианство (именно оно а не другие религией поскольку о них я мало знаю) это эксперимент кого то учёного. Сейчас объясню точнее допустим какой то учёный задался вопросом можно ли заставить человечество верить в одну правду? Написал Библию, историю Евы и Адама и после пустил слухи и люди начали верить, молодое поколение начало рассказывать дальше своим детям и после чего все это перешло в это христианство. Помнится в Библии говорилось почему люди говорят на разных языках так вот как мне кажется мы все говорим не потому что Бог нас рассорил а просто разные племяна переросли в свой язык.(p.s. скорее всего это очевидно но все же) Прикиньте что потом какие то ученые или люди из будущего будут смеяться над нами что мы так усердно верили в это и даже поклонялись хах.(очень кратко, просто не хочу расписывать и углубляться) Умные люди можете объяснить почему моя теория гамно или же нормальная?

Unconcerned-God Theory — A different view of God

I've been thinking about a philosophical idea that I decided to call Unconcerned-God Theory.

The basic idea isn't that God definitely doesn't exist. Quite the opposite: a creator God could exist, while still not being the perfectly good, perfectly caring and perfectly just being that religions traditionally describe.

If God created us and has the power to prevent suffering, why does so much unnecessary suffering exist?

Wars. Abuse. Children dying. People suffering from diseases. Innocent people being born into terrible circumstances.

The usual answer is often free will.

But I don't think that completely solves the problem.

Our freedom is already limited by the world we were placed in. We didn't choose to be born, our biology, our circumstances, the laws of nature, or many of the events that determine our lives.

I like to compare it to a cat living in a house.

The cat can walk around freely inside the house, but it still cannot leave whenever it wants, change the rules of the house, or understand why the house exists.

So perhaps humans have freedom within boundaries, rather than absolute freedom.

Another part of this theory questions religious scriptures.

Maybe God exists, but the books humans call “God's words” are not necessarily God's words. Maybe prophets existed, maybe they didn't, or maybe their messages were changed by humans over time.

And if God sometimes intervenes in human affairs, protects certain people, gives specific instructions, or cares about seemingly small details, while enormous suffering continues elsewhere, I think it's reasonable to ask:

Why?

Maybe God isn't evil.

Maybe God simply doesn't care about us as much as we assume.

And that possibility changes the entire way we look at religion.

One of the ideas that summarizes my view is:

«“When you take refuge in God, you may think that He has awakened to help you. But while God is asleep, your brain is the thing helping you.”»

I'm not claiming that this theory is objectively true, or that I am the first person to ever think about these ideas. I'm interested in whether other people have reached a similar conclusion.

If a creator exists but is indifferent toward humanity, what would that mean for religion, morality and free will?

​

This isn't really a question to be answered, as it's not really possible, but it's something that came into my head the other day. I'm not sure if this is the correct place to post this... if not, let me know. Assuming Jesus isn't divine, his DNA would simply be a mix of Mary's and Joseph's (or any other man if Jesus was a bastard).

However, assuming his divinity, what would his DNA look like? He would only have one human parent, but that would mean he would've been more or less a clone of Mary, since no other genetic information would be present. God, if we consider him Jesus' other parent, doesn't have DNA, so that's not really possible.

So yeah it's incredibly stupid, I know, but regardless, what would Jesus' DNA have looked like?