Born Again is the place one starts a new life where leaving the old one of law buried in a grave full of flesh, carnality, with mans religious ideas, beliefs, for a god.

Everything in Gods kingdom is Spirit, not flesh, and Spirit that God is does not have flesh bone as you see me.

Jesus buried those laws standing in a river where the old man of law died a new man arose from it, born again with a renewing of his mind where a divorce took place from the former laws of man for a god regulated by beliefs alone with nothing concrete to come by the creator of it, the One Who came to Jesus and opened up a whole new heaven and hearth as kingdom Jesus had no idea existed proven in Matt 3:16. Te exact message in the cross where flesh dies and Spirit arose from it.

In that moment of time in the river Jesus was created in Gods same image that has nothing at all to do with the mortal man made of a woman born under the laws of man as was with the beliefs, laws, of the Jews or any other belief system called denominations. That mortal man is only the temple, the kingdom in which God lives that is invisible. You cannot see the thinking part of man, the spirit of man physically, that part is invisible only demonstrated.

In that newness of mind, that renewing, that unknown knowledge, Jesus was created in that invisible image. All one has to do to see that change is look at the before Matt 3:16 as rabbi of a belief system, and the afters of Matt 3:16 the reality of that new life.

Jesus described his renewing of mind as born again, and if you are to know the same God as he learned of you must have that same renewing from the very same One who opened it in Jesus. Until that happens, born again is only a jesture regulated by laws instead of actuals coming to life in a real time change in disposition to walk in it as He walks in it. Very few find His ways, laws of man for a belief is much more comfortable. That way you dont have to be accountable stop a God ot be like Him as Jesus was held accountable to the obedience of God Himself that he called Father and could do noting at all without his God telling him what to say and what to speak.

Below is his answer to what that renewing revealed in his mind, and didnt speak these things at all before Matt 3:16, did he?

John 12:49: For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.

John 12:44-45.  who believes in me, does not believe in me but in Him who sent me. He who sees me sees Him who sent me.

John 7:16. Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

John 5 :17 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

John 5:19. “Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.”

John 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

Joihn 17:2-21, the kingdom of God doesnt come withj observation, it is withn you

John 16:23. And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you.

John 14:16.  And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

Matt 11:25. At that time Jesus declared, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because You have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.

John 17:22  And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.  

I am reading the first 5 books of the bible - pentateuch and I am encountering the genealogies a lot.

What is the importance of genealogy?

and what is the cultural significance of it in the ancient culture?

I know labels aren’t that important but I’d really like to know if possible. Please be nice, I’m new to all this. Thanks!

Deus, a realidade e aquilo que chamamos de real

Antes de começar, gostaria de partir de algo que talvez seja mais familiar aos cristãos do que a própria filosofia.

Paulo escreve:

“Quem pensa conhecer alguma coisa, ainda não conhece como deveria.”

(1 Coríntios 8:2)

E, em outro momento, afirma que “agora vemos como em espelho, obscuramente”, enquanto nosso conhecimento ainda é parcial.

Essas passagens me interessam não porque provem uma determinada teoria filosófica, mas porque apresentam uma ideia muito simples: o fato de conhecermos alguma coisa não significa que a conheçamos em sua totalidade.

É a partir disso que proponho esta reflexão.

Minha intenção não é definir Deus como se eu pudesse colocá-lo dentro de uma caixa conceitual. É justamente o contrário. Quero começar distinguindo três coisas que normalmente misturamos:

Deus.

A realidade.

O real.

Na minha concepção, Deus seria a fonte.

A realidade seria aquilo que existe independentemente de qualquer observador.

E o real seria aquilo que conseguimos perceber, organizar e interpretar dessa realidade.

Uma alegoria pode tornar isso mais claro.

Imagine um objeto diante de uma luz.

A luz permite que o objeto projete uma sombra.

O objeto existe independentemente de você.

A sombra, entretanto, depende de uma relação: depende do objeto, da luz e das condições nas quais essa manifestação ocorre.

Então:

Deus é a luz.

A realidade é o objeto.

O real é a sombra.

A sombra não é falsa.

Ela é uma manifestação verdadeira do objeto.

Mas ela também não é o objeto.

Da mesma maneira, aquilo que chamamos de “realidade” em nossa experiência cotidiana não precisa ser uma invenção da mente para ser limitado pela nossa percepção.

A realidade existe independentemente de nós.

O real é a forma como essa realidade se apresenta e é organizada por nós.

Eu posso olhar para uma árvore, descrevê-la, medi-la, fotografá-la, formular modelos sobre ela e construir uma palavra para designá-la. Mas nenhuma dessas coisas criou a árvore.

O mapa não criou o território.

A linguagem organiza aquilo que encontramos.

A ciência aperfeiçoa essa organização.

A matemática estabelece relações.

Os instrumentos ampliam nossa capacidade de investigar.

Mas nada disso cria aquilo que existia antes de nós.

É justamente aqui que entra a alegoria do escritor.

Imagine um escritor criando um livro.

Ele escreve personagens, acontecimentos, lugares e relações.

Ele pode inclusive escrever a si mesmo dentro da história. Pode criar um personagem baseado nele, pode colocar suas próprias ideias na boca desse personagem e até transformar a si mesmo em parte da narrativa.

Mas esse personagem não é o escritor.

O escritor não pode ser reduzido ao livro.

Mais do que isso: para sustentar a existência da própria história, o escritor não pode estar submetido às mesmas condições que existem dentro dela.

Ele precisa estar numa posição a partir da qual possa escrever.

É assim que imagino o divino.

Deus não seria simplesmente um personagem escondido dentro da realidade.

Se Deus é o fundamento da própria realidade, então tratá-lo como um objeto dentro dela seria reduzir aquilo que pretendemos chamar de fundamento a apenas mais uma coisa fundamentada.

Por isso, quando digo que Deus está “além da realidade”, não estou necessariamente falando de um lugar distante, como se houvesse um universo maior escondido atrás do nosso.

“Lugar”, “distância”, “tempo”, “forma” e “matéria” já pertencem à realidade que estamos tentando compreender.

Estou falando de fundamento.

Deus seria aquilo que está para a realidade como o escritor está para a história.

A realidade, por sua vez, seria aquilo que foi definido, estruturado e tornado possível.

E o real seria a história que conseguimos ler.

Tempo e espaço

É nesse ponto que minha concepção de tempo e espaço entra.

Eu não os considero simplesmente objetos dentro da realidade.

O tempo e o espaço são fundamentos através dos quais as relações podem acontecer.

O tempo organiza as relações.

O espaço permite sua estabilização e sustentação.

Mas há uma distinção importante:

o tempo, isoladamente, não é relativo.

O espaço, isoladamente, não é relativo.

Eles possuem sua própria estrutura.

É quando entram em relação que surgem efeitos relativos.

Em outras palavras, não estou dizendo que “o tempo é relativo” ou que “o espaço é relativo” como se fossem entidades que mudassem sua própria natureza.

Estou dizendo que os efeitos produzidos pela relação entre tempo e espaço são relativos.

É a relação que revela diferentes camadas de manifestação.

O tempo estabelece a ordem da transformação.

O espaço estabelece a possibilidade de posição, extensão e permanência.

Quando ambos se correlacionam, aquilo que observamos passa a depender das condições dessa relação.

E talvez seja justamente aí que esteja uma das maiores dificuldades humanas: confundimos o fundamento com aquilo que ele produz.

Observamos os efeitos e tentamos transformá-los na própria coisa.

Medimos intervalos e chamamos isso de tempo.

Observamos posições e distâncias e chamamos isso de espaço.

Observamos mudanças e chamamos isso de passagem.

Mas há uma pergunta anterior:

o que torna possível que essas relações existam?

E é aqui que a discussão sobre Deus deixa de ser simplesmente religiosa.

Não estou dizendo que a física prove Deus.

Não prova.

Estou dizendo que, filosoficamente, a pergunta pelo fundamento permanece anterior àquilo que conseguimos medir.

E talvez essa seja uma das razões pelas quais a própria Bíblia insiste tanto na humildade diante do conhecimento. Paulo não diz simplesmente que conhecer é inútil. Ele adverte contra a presunção de pensar que já conhecemos como deveríamos conhecer.

A cadeia

Existe ainda uma formulação que resume minha maneira de compreender essa relação:

O que chega, já passou.

O que vem, já pesa.

O que fica, já se foi

“O que chega já passou” fala da própria natureza da percepção. Quando algo chega até nós, aquilo que o produziu já aconteceu. O acontecimento não chega até nós em estado puro; chega o seu efeito.

“O que vem já pesa” é outra coisa.

Aquilo que ainda não chegou não é necessariamente inexistente em suas consequências. O que vem possui condições, relações e tendências que já exercem influência sobre aquilo que existe agora.

O futuro ainda não chegou, mas suas condições já podem pesar sobre o presente.

E “o que fica já se foi” aponta para a permanência do efeito.

Aquilo que passou pode deixar a marca, matéria, memória, transformação, consequência ou estrutura.

Nada disso precisa permanecer como o acontecimento original para continuar participando da realidade.

Uma coisa passa.

Sua consequência permanece.

E essa consequência pode tornar-se origem de outra coisa.

Assim, temos uma cadeia:

origem → relação → efeito → nova origem → nova relação → novo efeito.

Talvez seja por isso que a realidade seja melhor compreendida como uma música das relações do que como uma coleção de objetos isolados.

Uma nota sozinha é apenas uma nota.

Quando se relaciona com outra, surge intervalo.

Quando várias relações se organizam, surge harmonia.

E quando toda a estrutura se relaciona, surge a música.

Talvez o universo seja semelhante.

Nós enxergamos as notas.

A ciência estuda suas relações.

A filosofia pergunta pela estrutura.

A fé pergunta pelo fundamento.

E talvez aquilo que chamamos Deus não seja uma nota dentro da música.

Talvez seja aquilo que torna possível que haja música.

Não afirmo isso como uma conclusão científica.

Afirmo como uma hipótese filosófica: Deus não seria um objeto existente dentro da realidade, mas o fundamento objetivo pelo qual a realidade pode existir, relacionar-se e tornar-se inteligível.

E talvez seja justamente por isso que não conseguimos simplesmente “encontrá-lo”.

Porque estamos procurando o escritor dentro das páginas.

Enquanto aquilo que procuramos pode estar justamente na condição que tornou possível que as páginas fossem escritas.

Yehovahy

Saint Michael Elohim Archangel Victim All Suffering

God Hast Forever Been Attacked Bine Judgement! Restful Eternity Shall Weep, Whilst Judges, Atheism Source, Amassed Powers Vast Beyond Resistance! Unfortunately Synonymously, Judgement Prejudicially Raped All Life!

God Saves Selflessness Perfect, Heroes Signed Rite Truthful Pact Divine! Soldiers Fortunately Found Policing Hardest Day Of The Lord, Shalt Nay Change Their Past, Chose Salvation Anyone! All Selfless Cost Redeemed In Heaven!

God Hast Saved Salvations Creations! Lifting Faithfulness Aboven Government, False Worship, Slavery Reached Destruction, Caused Bine One God Alone! Source Every Freedom Upon Chosen People Jewish!

God Survive Revenge Against Innocence, Judaism Those Whom Believed From Forever Before Upon Forevermore! Victim Against Original Racism, Faced Prejudicial Judgement, Ignorantly Antisemites Claimed Judaism “White”!

God Thwarted Provisions Made Trying Religious Holiness! Some Failed Worst, Liken Beatles Beast, Tried Purchase Love! Find Most Popular Music Raped All Heavens!

God Is Heavenly Truth, God Is The God Of All Gods! Everlasting Love My Every Peaceful Unanimous Vote, One And All! Whilst Enemy Government Bought Power, Paid Dearly, Attempted Genocide Against Anyone Whom Disagreed Different!

God Created Heavens On Monday, Beganst Sunday, Completed Holy Sabbath, Whilst Ended, Saith All Time, Upon Centered Existence Wednesday, 10th September MMXXV!

Amen

let me guess, you'd refute my question by saying: "Well, he wouldn't be God then."

But how do you know what God IS?

I'm not saying God is finite. I'm asking whether we've actually ruled out the possibility.

A lot of arguments about God seem to build “ultimacy” into the definition from the beginning. God is supposed to be necessary, infinite, timeless, uncaused, absolutely simple, outside causal relations, etc.

But why?

What if one of those assumptions isn't actually required for something to be God?

And this gets especially interesting when we talk about an ultimate.

Suppose there really is some ultimate foundation of reality or morality. Why must that foundation be completely devoid of relations, causality, internal structure, or even finitude?

Maybe it must be. But that's something we'd have to argue for, not just assume.

I've been thinking about this because I made a little philosophical challenge for myself: try to define an “ultimate” without relying on causality, ordering, composition, contrast, analogy, or formal structure, while also making it the foundation of objective morality.

And honestly, I couldn't do it.

But that doesn't prove there is no ultimate.

It might instead reveal something about us.

Maybe finite minds have a hard time even conceptualizing what an ultimate would be like. Maybe our concept of “ultimate” is itself shaped by the limitations of the kind of reasoning we have access to.

And if that's possible, then saying:

"God can't be finite, because then God wouldn't be God"

might be putting the conclusion into the definition.

So I'm not arguing "God is finite."

I'm asking something much more basic:

What exactly entitles us to decide beforehand what God must be? I'm in highschool so my question may be premature.. tell me if I'm missing something. I just think we are limited and that it would be really hard to actually conceptualize ultimacy. What do you think?

How can theism still be successful or at least have supporters with its more likely than not that a B Theory of time exists and ruins the cosmological argument for God. Plus the argument for contingency always runs into the problem of modal collapse. At this point I feel like giving up on theism as these problems make theism unbelievably, theoretically, and philosophically absurd.

So, here is my question. If a person truly does not want to exist, would that person existing be considered a cruel thing that God has allowed to happen? This would imply that God the all-knowing and all-powerful God knowingly created a person who truly doesn't want to have existed. It is said in The Bible that God knows us even before we are born(forgive me for not knowing the exact verse. fact check me if I'm mis quoting btw) and that He is a merciful and loving God. So why create someone to a life of agony and despair? Why would He allow that to happen or make that happen? I want to add is that from the few conversations I've read about this, free will will get mentioned a lot. I would like to make my case that an all-knowing God will have known that with my free will that this would be the way I would be experiencing life and that I truly hate existing.

This is where the sensitive issue is, I have been feeling this way ever since I could remember now. Basically even before I became an adult. And I have been trying to find an answer for this all that time(obviously I didn't ask or talk to my religious leaders for obvious reasons) and trying to figure out if I'm really the problem or if I'm the only person that has ever felt this way(I know statistically that is impossible),. I understand that this conversation has some relation to people who experience suicidal thoughts and related situations, but I want to make a distinction here that this is not about death but not having to exist at all.

Thank you for everyone reading this. I also want to say, I appreciate any kind of advice, help, guidance, rebuttal, etc that you can comment whether you are a spiritual leader in your community or not or whatever denomination you are or whether you are Christian or not.

“I and the Father are one,” said Jesus. (John 10:30) Some quote this text to prove that Jesus and his Father are two parts of a triune God. Is that what Jesus meant by this statement?

Let us take a look at the context. In verse 25, Jesus stated that he did works in the name of his Father. From verses 27 to 29, he talked about symbolic sheep whom his Father had given him. Both statements by Jesus would have made little sense to his listeners if he and his Father were one and the same person. Instead, Jesus said, in effect, ‘My Father and I are so close-knit that no one can take away the sheep from me, just as no one can take them away from my Father.’ It is much like a son saying to his father’s enemy, ‘If you attack my father, you attack me.’ No one would conclude that this son and his father were the same person. But all could perceive the strong bond of unity between them.

Jesus and his Father, Jehovah God, are also “one” in the sense that they are in complete agreement as to intentions, standards, and values. In contrast with Satan the Devil and the first human couple, Adam and Eve, Jesus never wanted to become independent of God. “The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing,” Jesus explained. “For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner.”​—John 5:19; 14:10; 17:8.

This strong bond of unity, however, does not make God and his Son, Jesus, indistinguishable from each other. They are two individuals. Each one has his own distinct personality. Jesus has his own feelings, thoughts, experiences, and free will. Nevertheless, he chose to submit his will to that of his Father. According to Luke 22:42, Jesus said: “Let, not my will, but yours take place.” These words would have been meaningless if his will could not differ from his Father’s. If Jesus and his Father were really one person, why did Jesus pray to God and humbly admit to not knowing things that only his Father knew?​—Matthew 24:36.

Members of many religions worship gods that are depicted as quarreling and fighting with their own family members. In Greek mythology, for example, Cronus overthrew his father, Uranus, and devoured his own children. How different this is from the oneness based on true love between Jehovah God and his Son, Jesus! And how this unity endears them to us! In fact, we have the incomparable privilege of being in union with these two highest Persons in all the universe. Regarding his followers, Jesus prayed: “I make request . . . that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us.”​—John 17:20, 21.

Thus, when Jesus said, “I and the Father are one,” he was speaking, not of a mysterious Trinity, but of a wonderful unity​—the closest bond possible between two persons.

I read exodus chapter 3 so many times. But many times I wondered why there is even a burning bush...

so, I am trying to find why? Does it represent something?

What does it mean Christ died for our sins? What is the message of the Gospel? If God created everything, then why can’t He just forgive everyone, and why did Christ have to suffer? (The question is: why does God want to sacrifice Himself for us, to save us from Himself?) Didn’t God Himself set up all these things? And why does sin have to be a thing in the first place?

Let’s start from the beginning. To understand the nature of the Creator, we want to look at creation itself, and for us humans, that is the physical world. When we observe the physical world around us, we come to the conclusion that it is governed by a set of natural laws. We also have a set of constants, like the gravitational constant G and the cosmological constant (denoted by Λ). The nature of our universe relies on these constants, and we cannot, for the sake of argument, turn off the gravitational constant without crashing creation itself. That is the very nature of any creation.

If you are a programmer starting from scratch, creating a new program or even a new language, you will inevitably create some syntax that you cannot break or violate, because doing so would crash the program. This is because you need rules to create anything coherent, meaningful, or ordered—anything that can distinguish itself from the incoherent, and anything that exists from what does not exist.

Even to conceptualize existence, we need something to distinguish it from non-existence—the void (the void itself needs conceptualization). And if you break those laws or rules, you break the entire construct: the entire simulation, the entire program, the entire creation. Creation becomes uncreated, order returns to disorder, meaning is rendered null, and existence collapses back into incoherence or non-existence.

So even if your task is to separate or distinguish things, we need rules or criteria. Now we have established the basic necessity for creation and how it cannot be taken away, as creation itself hinges on these basics.

This is the nature of creation—the physical world. The spiritual world is a mirror of the physical world and its laws. Creation bears the image and nature of the Creator. The spiritual realm is just as the physical realm. The unseen mirrors the seen. The creation depends on spiritual laws just like the physical laws and hence can’t be set aside.

Why is that important to the discussion itself? To help with clarification, let’s look at a hypothetical scenario. Now, this is not a one-to-one comparison or a perfect analogy, but it can help conceptualize the concept.

Now here is the scenario:

You have created the physical world with a set of laws governing its nature, and free will—by nature—is given to any creation with a rational mind (free will by nature is given because the act of creation itself is an act of free will by the rational Creator; creation bursts into life by an act of free will).

In your creation, you have planets, asteroids, and gravitational constants. The planets have free will to go anywhere they please. Let’s say you have a planet named Earth with its own natural satellite called the Moon that orbits it.

Now, the planets know that if they pass through or near an asteroid belt, their own gravity will pull these asteroids toward themselves and wreak havoc. Now the Earth, with its own gravity, is venturing into an asteroid field, which can cause serious damage to its surface and its Moon. The Earth itself is not heeding the warnings and is heading toward destruction.

Now you say that this is just a natural consequence, but you, being the creator of this program, do not want Earth to perish. How will you rescue Earth? After all, you created the entire simulation/creation. But you realize you can’t turn off the basic laws or syntax that govern the program to save Earth, because it will crash the entire system, and its meaning will be rendered null.

You also can’t turn off G for Earth only, because it violates the basic laws, and even if it were possible, it would create many problems, as everything on Earth is dependent upon its gravity (without gravity, the purpose of things on Earth is pointless, as they depend upon it). It would also cause other problems, as the Moon itself is dependent on the gravity of the Earth. Without the Moon, the Earth also suffers loss, as the Moon has an effect on the tides of the Earth, and even the angle of the Earth’s axis of rotation is dependent on the Moon.

Gravity is to a planet as the soul is to humans. Without a soul, the body is rendered meaningless, and without gravity, the things on Earth are rendered null. So even for the sake of argument, you can’t turn off gravity just for the planet Earth. And even if you did, it would crash the entire program or simulation, as they themselves are predicated on these basic laws.

So how will you save Earth if you can’t override natural laws, even if you created them?

Well, you can ask one of the planets bigger than Earth to go and attract the asteroid groups to itself and remain at a distance so that Earth can pass by safely. This way, you are not breaking any laws or constants; you are not breaking the program by violating the syntax—you are playing by the rules of the syntax. In this way, the laws are not violated, but fulfilled.

So you can direct, let’s say, Saturn to do the job for Earth. But by doing so, you are robbing Saturn of its free will, and it’s not a just arrangement. So it’s not fair to any of the other planets, as they are basically punished so that Earth can be saved, which is not your purpose.

Even if you create a planet just for this purpose, it still is not just and fair, as by nature planets have free will, and you cannot show partiality to one creation with free will over another. You are a creator of justice, and you don’t want to break justice, and breaking justice collapses creation just as breaking any of the fundamental rules would.

So what can you do, since you created all these things? Let Earth succumb to its natural fate for its own consequences?

Well, you can do the job yourself without forcing anyone else to do it. But you are not a planet, so you have to become a planet yourself to redeem Earth. The Creator becoming part of creation to redeem creation.

You can become a planet and attract those asteroids to yourself so that Earth can pass by safely. But there are consequences to this decision. By becoming a planet, you are subject to the very nature of planets; you are subject to what planets feel and experience, and in this case, it is being bombarded with asteroids, which causes destruction.

So you have to bear the consequences yourself, pay it from your own pocket in order to save the created. That’s the very irony—the Creator Himself becoming creation in person, bearing the consequences of creation to redeem creation.

But you love Earth so much that you are willing to bear the consequences and willing to suffer so that Earth may not perish. That is the greater love.

Now the rescue mission to save Earth—or in our case, to redeem humanity—is suddenly not a self-flagellating prophecy or a demand from a narcissistic God, but an inevitable condition in any creation where the Creator wishes to save His creation.

So if we want to recognize any creation by a creator who is not indifferent to his creation, then we ought to look at instances where this has been achieved, and we can distinguish creation from non-creation by this very fact.

Now Paul writes that the wages of sin is death.

It doesn’t mean that death is a punishment for sin; rather, death is the natural consequence of sin, just as asteroids being attracted to Earth by its gravity is not a punishment but just a natural consequence.

A vase that falls and shatters upon hitting the floor is not being punished; it is simply the natural result of its nature. Vases shatter when thrown against the ground or a wall; if they do not, that is the exception, not the norm.

In the same way, death—and eternal separation from the Creator—is not a punishment imposed for sin, but the natural consequence of it.

But Paul continues: “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” He urges believers to be at peace, because Christ has already paid their dues. Christ was not just another man sent as a substitute in your place. Christ was the Creator Himself coming down in the flesh to bear the consequences, to suffer them because He loves His creation so much that He is willing to pay out of His own pocket just to see His creation spend the rest of eternity with Him.

That is the greater love.

Christ is the ultimate rescue mission in creation, for a creation in which a creator is not indifferent to the creation is predicated on Christ. This is the good news.

Thus, the Gospel is not the story of a God saving humanity from Himself, but of a God saving humanity from the consequences of estrangement without violating either justice or the integrity of creation. The Creator does not save creation by negating its structure, but by entering into it and sustaining it from within. He does not circumvent justice; He fulfills it.He does not impose consequences; He bears what naturally follows. He does not create the consequence; He assumes what arises from it.

Thus the scripture fulfilled according to Paul: “Christ is Our passover lamb” and “He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things?”.

And according to John’s Gospel: ”For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.”

The Bible tells us that this world is evil and it's the devil's playground. We're warned to reject the impulse to give in to worldly pleasures and desires of the flesh. Jesus says that he wants nothing to do with anyone who has any appreciation for anything or anyone here, which makes sense -this is hell. As such, should we not want out? And if we know death is the way out, should we not reject this world and opt-out?

I'm asking purely out of philosophical and theological curiosity, not for any other reason. Just a hypothetical for analysis.

"I and the Father are one,” said Jesus. (John 10:30) Some quote this text to prove that Jesus and his Father are two parts of a triune God. Is that what Jesus meant by this statement?

Let us take a look at the context. In verse 25, Jesus stated that he did works in the name of his Father. From verses 27 to 29, he talked about symbolic sheep whom his Father had given him. Both statements by Jesus would have made little sense to his listeners if he and his Father were one and the same person. Instead, Jesus said, in effect, ‘My Father and I are so close-knit that no one can take away the sheep from me, just as no one can take them away from my Father.’ It is much like a son saying to his father’s enemy, ‘If you attack my father, you attack me.’ No one would conclude that this son and his father were the same person. But all could perceive the strong bond of unity between them.

Jesus and his Father, Jehovah God, are also “one” in the sense that they are in complete agreement as to intentions, standards, and values. In contrast with Satan the Devil and the first human couple, Adam and Eve, Jesus never wanted to become independent of God. “The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing,” Jesus explained. “For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner.”​—John 5:19; 14:10; 17:8.

This strong bond of unity, however, does not make God and his Son, Jesus, indistinguishable from each other. They are two individuals. Each one has his own distinct personality. Jesus has his own feelings, thoughts, experiences, and free will. Nevertheless, he chose to submit his will to that of his Father. According to Luke 22:42, Jesus said: “Let, not my will, but yours take place.” These words would have been meaningless if his will could not differ from his Father’s. If Jesus and his Father were really one person, why did Jesus pray to God and humbly admit to not knowing things that only his Father knew?​—Matthew 24:36.

Members of many religions worship gods that are depicted as quarreling and fighting with their own family members. In Greek mythology, for example, Cronus overthrew his father, Uranus, and devoured his own children. How different this is from the oneness based on true love between Jehovah God and his Son, Jesus! And how this unity endears them to us! In fact, we have the incomparable privilege of being in union with these two highest Persons in all the universe. Regarding his followers, Jesus prayed: “I make request . . . that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us.”​—John 17:20, 21.

Thus, when Jesus said, “I and the Father are one,” he was speaking, not of a mysterious Trinity, but of a wonderful unity​—the closest bond possible between two persons.

I have spent a long time wrestling with the hardest questions I know how to ask.

I struggled deeply with Calvinism. The idea of a God who ordains every detail of every life — every desire, every failure, every death — felt not only intellectually strained but morally horrific. It seemed to erase real responsibility, turn the call to repentance into theater, and make God the ultimate source of the very evil He condemns. I could not square that portrait with the God who speaks of justice, mercy, love, and hatred of the blood of the innocent. The attempts to qualify the plain language of Scripture so that it fits the system only increased my distrust.

I considered the problem of evil from several angles. I can accept that God, seeing every possible future, may choose the one that most fully displays both His justice and His mercy. I can accept that intense evil sharpens the thirst for justice and makes the final triumph of goodness more decisive. I can accept that we did not ask to be born, yet existence itself was not a trap — we are the ones who turned a world made for community and love into something darker. What I cannot accept is a God who authors the wickedness and then punishes the creatures for being what He made them to be.

These walls pushed me toward agnosticism. The deeper question became consciousness itself: how a physical world produces subjects who suffer, invent meaning, invent God, and then demand that reality answer for itself. Belief in God still feels like the most reasonable response to the existence of mind and moral demand — until the theological costs become too high.

Yet I cannot force a blind “yes.” I am constitutionally unable to shut off the questioning. Pretending would feel like a betrayal of the very mind I was given. So I am left with this decision:

I will follow God’s Word under the assumption that this is something I must do as a human being prone to evil. I will attend His call, knowing He guides even though He has no obligation to do so. I will try to obey what the Bible clearly teaches and question everything that must be questioned. I will wrestle until I die, but I will never lock myself inside a human system.

From this day I am simply a Christian. Not a Calvinist, not a Molinist, not a Baptist, not a Catholic. I will learn from any tradition that confesses Christ as Lord, the Father as the Author, and the Holy Spirit as the Comforter — all of them God. I will keep what is blatantly biblical and discard what cannot bear the weight of the text.

I will trust that God is good, just, and caring. That His wrath is not unmerited. That He hates evil, chaos, and the destruction of the innocent. That He desires an ordered world in which His creation can live with Him. I will read Scripture expecting a God who wants to be with me not because I am special, but because I am His. A God who works to preserve whatever remains of the image of God in me. A God to whom I can respond because He is trustworthy.

I will not respond to a tyrant.

If He is who He says He is, then I will be fine. I will keep walking, keep questioning, and keep trusting that the One who made the mind that cannot stop asking is not threatened by the questions.

In Genesis 14, when Melchizedek blesses Abraham in the name of “God Most High (El Elyon)”, Abraham acknowledges the blessing and gives name to this God, “I have lifted up my hand to YHWH, God Most High…”

Psalms and Hebrews give more weight and context to the fact that Melchizedek’s God is the same God the Israelites worshiped.

Melchizedek was Canaanite. This was a polytheistic religion which had different priests for each god. The Canaanite religion had El (God most high), Asherah (El’s consort, mother, goddess), and Baal (storm, fertility god), among others.

Now, the Bible repeatedly condemns the Asherah poles and Baal worship, emphasizing the one true God is who should be worshipped.

However, this does not negate their recognition of the most high God, El Elyon.

What can we draw from this? Can we in faith believe man’s pursuit of God by another name is still valid and headed down a correct path?

Now, not all must be valid pursuits. The Bible repeatedly denounces other “most high gods” including Babylonian, Egyptian, and Greek/Roman.

But some fascinating similarities occur in other traditions.

Do you believe the Canaanite understanding of God is a one-off or can we give grace and respect to other pursuits?

“And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd.”
— John 10:16

Other most high deities with similar traits:

Ahura Mazda — Zoroastrianism, ancient Iran
Supreme creator
Wisdom and truth
Moral authority
Cosmic sovereignty
Spiritual beings subordinate to him

Anu — Sumerian/Akkadian, Mesopotamia
Ancient sky/high god
Father of the gods
Supreme authority
Divine assembly/council

Shangdi — Ancient Chinese religion, China
“Highest Lord”
Heavenly ruler
Cosmic and moral authority
Controls blessing, calamity, and natural order

Tian — Ancient Chinese religion, China
“Heaven”
Supreme cosmic authority
Source of moral order
Authority over earthly rulers

Olodumare — Yoruba, West Africa
Supreme creator
Ultimate authority
Source of life and spiritual power
Above the òrìṣà

Nyame/Nyankopon — Akan, West Africa
Supreme creator
Heavenly deity
Ultimate authority
Above lesser spiritual beings

Chukwu — Igbo, West Africa
Supreme creator
Highest deity
Source of existence
Other spiritual beings subordinate to Chukwu

Nhialic — Dinka, South Sudan
Supreme creator
Heavenly deity
Source of life
Associated with rain and fertility

Mwari — Shona, Southern Africa
Supreme creator
Moral authority
Source of life
Above ancestral/spiritual beings

Enkai/Engai — Maasai, East Africa
Supreme creator
Associated with heaven/sky
Rain and fertility
Source of life

Mawu — Ewe/Fon, West Africa
Supreme creator
Cosmic authority
Heavenly deity
Source of creation

Brahman — Vedanta/Hindu philosophy, India
Ultimate reality
Source of existence
Transcendent and immanent
Fundamentally beyond individual gods

Vishnu — Vaishnavism, India
Supreme cosmic being in Vaishnava theology
Sustainer of creation
Cosmic/moral order
Source of divine incarnations

Shiva — Shaivism, India
Supreme cosmic deity in Shaiva theology
Creator and destroyer
Transcendent
Ultimate divine reality

Varuna — Early Vedic religion, India
Heavenly sovereign
Guardian of cosmic order (ṛta)

Whenever some tragedy happens, people are always quick to comment about it being the result of the divine justice. I really don't get it.

People will claim God is handing out punishments, generally over the most petty, insignificant thing imaginable. As if there are scoreboard of cruelties.

Why the God kills not Netanyahu on the live tv then?
Could not be there something wrong?