The most plausible form of Christianity?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 вер 2024
- I outline a version of theism that doesn't suffer from some of the problems that I find the most troubling. Universalism, in conjunction with a handful of other views, seems capable of smoothing over some of my biggest reasons for rejecting theism.
This is a clip from a longer interview on Adherent Apologetics. We didn't plan on covering this subject, but I was asked near the end of the interview about what I considered to be the most viable form of Christianity. Universalism has been on my mind a lot in the past month or so, and this seemed like a good way of kicking off the exploration on this podcast. If we're to steelman Christianity and attack it at its best, this is to my mind the version that deserves our attention.
Watch the full interview here • Atheist Makes Case for...
David Bentley Hart - That All Shall Be Saved www.amazon.com...
Keith Derose - Universalism and the Bible campuspress.ya...
Elenore Stump - Closer to Truth • Eleonore Stump - Do Ma...
Joe Schmid w/ Trent Horn - Is explicit knowledge of God necessary for a relationship with him? • The agnostic case agai...
Consider supporting at / counter
Apple Podcasts: podcasts.apple...
Spotify: open.spotify.c...
linktr.ee/emer...
Since you're already reading David Bentley Hart, I suggest his book on theodicy called "The Doors to the Sea". He takes down bad christian responses to evil in the same way he takes down ETC. His "the experience of God" is also good as an explanation of the classical theism model of God. Good video, hope you find truth.
Amen, the only way to not compromise on God's love or sovereignty, is UR
You're absolutely correct that Christian Universalism is the only coherent and plausible form of Christianity. You're also correct on the problem of evil/suffering being the strongest argument against belief in an omnibenevolent, omnipotent God.
I'd like to share with you what has helped me get past the problem of evil/suffering and open up to accepting Christian Universalism.
This is not a theodicy and I don't expect that everybody would find it convincing. There's no easy answer to the problem we're talking about.
That's my preface out of the way.
I take a more practical approach to the problem and view it in terms of how to stay sane and not give in to despair. There is no theodicy that just makes the problem of evil and suffering magically disappear.
However, there's no question about the fact that living in this world inevitably entails having to face and experience evil and suffering. So how do we deal with that?
For me it boils down to the following.
We have two options while enduring the slings and arrows that this life throws at us.
Option 1: Endure without hope
Option 2: Endure with hope
Christian Universalism isn't a perfect theodicy, but it does at least offer the hope that the ultimate end of all things is a truly good end...a much better than good end actually.
Atheism and philosophical Naturalism offer no hope at all and, in my experience, they actually make the evil in this world and the suffering we endure much more unbearable. "Life is bleak, suck it up princess" is what this worldview ultimately amounts to.
I've lived and suffered in both headspaces and the one that offers hope, however remote or uncertain the hope can seem at times, produces far better mental health outcomes.
It's impossible to solve this problem with reason and logic alone. But if we allow ourselves to also take our intuition into account, it's possible for us to arrive at an imperfect solution that can help us cope better with the harsh realities of this world.
In full knowledge of the fact that this certainly isn't the final deathblow to atheism, I submit the following question for you to put to your intuition: If you find that your atheistic, philosophical Naturalist world view actually makes the evil and suffering that you object to harder to bear rather than easier to bear, in that it cannot offer any hope or consolation, might that not be an indication that there's something wrong with it and that it's not a healthy thing for a human being to live with?
"If it's the best possible outcome, you should be more confident God would bring it about"
Wow didn't realize I practically quoted you word for word with my rant on "hopeful universalists" the other day
do you have a channel were you post content?
Because we are supposed to suspend our disbelief that somehow a shittier version of Thanos is actually better than the greatest thing we can possibly imagine (which is likely already informed by one's Christian values/upbringing). Because His ways are higher than our ways in such a way that faith is not confidence in what we hope for, but is actually confidence in what we dread.
Great conversation and I really appreciate what you said about hopeful universalism. If universalism is possible then it’s true simple as that. Or God doesn’t exist but I’m saying if God exists and universalism is possible then it’s true.
Keep reading and watching David Bentley Hart, Emerson. I think you will see Theism with fresh eyes.
Emerson is describing almost exactly where I landed as my last stop on my way all the way out. From CS Lewis' inclusivism to David Bentley Hart, George MacDonald- esque universalism.
I never took this stop on my way out. Universalism was a joke.
For much of my life it was for me as well. I rested on a hopeful CS Lewis type inclusivism for a long time. But the question of whether an all-powerful and all loving God would eventually get what he wants or be denied it, carried water for me embracing exclusivist universalism for a while. Eventually it wasn't the philosophical and theological problems that ended it for me but rather a serious look at ANE religion and the origins of Yahweh and the people of Israel from Canaanite roots, historical critical studies of the NT, Jesus and early Xianity, neuroscience, neurotheology and the sociology and psychology (including evolutiinary psychology) of religious experience, etc. and in light of those fields of study and what they did to my ability to believe the xian story, the philosophical and theological questions almost seemed absurd, at least as far as the existence of anything like the xian god. If I came to philosophically embrace some form of theism or supernaturalism again, I don't think it would lead to me re embracing Christianity, a trinitarian god or a god with all the omni properties.
Philosopher and atheist, Stephen T. Asma published a book titled "Why We Need Religion". It's an excellent read and he makes the point that for all our love of logic, clear thinking, philosophy, and truth, we remain very much emotional beings. And religion is one thing that, for all its ills, manages to tap into and nourish that aspect of us. He's not arguing that it does this for everyone, nor that religion is not without its deep flaws. But it has, on average, and over time, worked out how to feed into our emotional states and allow us to cope with life in ways that without religion, we may struggle. When it comes to truth, Asma points us to a paper "The Evolutionary Argument Against Reality" by Donald Hoffman. If I understand correctly, Hoffman's argument is that while we consider that we are truth seekers, natural selection could just as easily allowed us to evolve alternative realities which we see as truth (even though they may not equate with some external reality). What they do is feed into our emotional states allowing us to survive better than we otherwise would.
So the upshot of all this is that if you feel a tug towards religion, then let yourself go, and explore it. If you end up being religious, then no sweat if you find it gives you something you did not have without it. Just don't fall for a religion that teaches you to think badly about other humans or to act badly against them. Religion is very dangerous that way. Otherwise it's fine. We are not simply truth seeking, rational, logical organisms without emotions. We have then from top to bottom and they need fuel. Asma's argument is that religion can be a great fuel.
//If we're to steelman Christianity and attack it at its best, this is to my mind the version that deserves our attention.//
I prefer to attack the conservative and fundamentalist versions of the faith because they are the ones that do the most damage to the minds and well-being of other humans. They play to some of our worst instincts such as I am in the light, wise, healed, joyous, a teller of truth, and a holder of pearls, while you are in darkness, foolish, sick, miserable, a teller of lies, a swine and in bad need of saving.
Emerson, here's the speed-run version of the "people choose to go to hell" dilemma you presented:
If God created a person and immediately revealed the truth to them and asked if they wanted to go to Heaven with God or hell alone, how would that person respond?
That person, who was created by God and finds fulfillment in God (as all people are created to do), would choose to go with God. If they didn't, they would, with FULL knowledge, be choosing to hurt themselves forever. This is impossible (unless they are insane, but insane people are not considered culpable for their choices). It's fundamentally impossible for a person with full knowledge to be responsible for choosing to go to hell in Christianity.
That's a good way of putting it, yes
I actually find the explanation that hell is locked from the inside at least partially plausible, because I've been in an epistemic bubble locked from the inside convinced that what was outside was worse. But it's still impossible to imagine that an all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful god wouldn't be able to extricate those inside.
before my apostasy, in the final stage of my Christian era I was a kind of universalist. I did believe that god is just an is going to judge every wrong ever, but not in a (partially) destructive way, but in a way that leads to the restoration of all things. Many Bible passages suggest that and a case for everlasting hell can only be made by picking & choosing a few verses, taking them out of context & blending them into a new doctrine
I think the same way am old now 70 but read this same C.S.Lewis book back in the 1970s now there’s a lot more books to read like DBH and a shit load of other books this is a good video🙏
If we’re to take Anselm’s ontological argument seriously, wouldn’t his God need be a universalist type God? I’m just thinking, “being than which no greater could be imagined”, a ECT God seems to be easily out greatered by a universalist God.
I watch a lot of near death experience videos, and a theme that comes up is people on the other side being told that they helped plan their life before they were born, they agreed to certain trials and hardships, knowing it would give them opportunities for growth or knowledge they could not otherwise achieve. Like planning a workout routine, some decide to go for a massive workout, while others, in the words of Arnold Schwartznegger, “pamper themselves with sissy workouts.” One person complained to Jesus about how hard his life was and Jesus laughed! He said, “but you planned it!” I know this is highly speculative but I believe it is possible and do not see where the Bible clearly rules this out. I believe in Christian Universalism, as of the last 2 years of very exhaustive research.
I've been much on the same trek as you. Thank you for sharing your comment!
You mentioned how horrible the world can be, for me this makes it intuitively less likely that universalism is true.
I know this is not a super strong argument, but my most direct and most reliable knowledge seems to be that of the natural world and I build my further beliefs on that basis. I observe the world and I see its harshness, so it seems most likely to me that if a God exists, he might also be a harsh being. The view of God that many associate with the Old Testament, God as a judge, God as a warrior etc. these are most in line with my observations of the world and such a view of God makes universalism unlikely in my eyes.
Agreed. The problem with Hart's universalism is that precisely because evil does exist it makes it difficult for the god he logically deduces to exist. Hart closely mirrors this but Socrates in his meno dialogue seems to hold the best view imho which evil is at bottom ignorance of the good. It still begs the question of why are people, myself included, so ignorant of the good or able to have the capacity to do so.
If you want to want to have a cynical take, maybe acknowledge that the world being indifferent is evidence of an indifferent or non-existent God. And at least the silver lining that comes with this cynical intuitive-'realism' is that there is freedom and relief that the universe does not conspire anything against you. It's much easier to forgive the wind than it is to forgive a mind that wills the course of fate.
I love that you actually understand the arguments and even though you're not a theist you give fair and honest critiques and don't argue against strawmen. As a theist who has come to embrace Universalism, some of your points greatly strengthened my resolve so I appreciate that! I understand your struggle with the problem of evil. I don't pretend to have any solid answers, but one thing I feel is that getting rid of God only exacerbate the problem because now there is no hope for ultimate justice, for all the horrible things people experience to somehow be made right. I will always have my doubts, and while I'm a very confident Universalist, I am truly hopeful that Christianity is true, even when I don't always feel it's true, so that everyone will find justice, peace, forgiveness, perfect love and harmony one day.
You're apt to point out the problem of evil is still present in a godless universe. Yours is a noble hope, but for many a belief in a creator still exacerbates the problem of evil. It is much easier to forgive the mindless wind than it is to forgive the mouth that blew it. Just as the well-mannered atheist should not batter the theist for his source of meaning, neither should the theist bash the atheist for the way he makes peace with fate.
@@Danobot11 I get it, and there's no bashing from my end. I appreciate the thoughtful and honest dialog that can happen between different views. We're all trying to figure this life thing out and we should all walk with a little more grace and humility. To your point, the problem of evil, I appreciate that I can live in hope that love and kindness are true, real, active forces that will eventually do away with all evil.
Universalism and open theism. A limited God has to be involved, or it's just a play.
The advantage of atheist as being able to call the apparent moral randomness of the world exactly that: morally random, is so overlooked. It seems nihilistic to some by I'd say it's more freeing precisely because we don't have to have faith that an apparent evil is somehow good. Calling good and evil and evil good for the sake of getting God off the hook actually undermines our moral reality and introduces more absurdity when there need not be.
When Paul says all of Israel will be saved isn't that universalism?
I don't even see how eternal mild irritation could be justified
Afterall it's just less intense
The same problem will apply
"why would God create this world where there is evil and suffering."
If you are creating gravity, you craft a rule where things go up and can fall down - a stable system. Your question here is akin to asking "why would God create gravity and falling, which may cause dismemberment or death".
This is disingenuous. There are many ways for God to limit the ubiquitous suffering of the world without disrupting the system.
@@billsherman1565 how do you know? What's your basis for making that claim?
@@Z3rk Reason and rationality. Is it not ontologically possible for there to be a world where in which children do not get cancer? This is a system he's set up, often no one's free will is involved, nothing is entailed in the laws of biology that requires this occur, the bodies control mechanisms could simply work better, more efficiently.
This seems obviously gratuitous to me.
@@billsherman1565 Can you elaborate on your reasoning? What's your starting point, and how do you logically arrive to your conclusion?
In the Christian (general Abrahamic (?)) world view, a believing child getting cancer suffers, and is transported to a place of no suffering after. So, if this is true, God isn't being paradoxically cruel here.
On the topic of free will, you'll find much debate amongst Christians on that. I think it could be that free will is like watching a pre-recorded football game - the players did have free will when playing the game, but you (the person outside of time and space, in this football game) are able to rewatch it and know how it ends.
"The body's control mechanisms could work better" - What are you comparing to? Some electrical signals your brain tells you is the ideal body control mechanism configuration?
@@Z3rk " believing child getting cancer suffers, and is transported to a place of no suffering after. So, if this is true, God isn't being paradoxically cruel here."
Obviously incorrect, as the designer, that suffering is unnecessary in the first place. Again, there is nothing entailed in the laws of biology, that cancer be a possible outcome. thus, the suffering is gratuitous and thus, cruel.
Your point on free will has nothing to do with my example. Often no ones free will is involved in the child getting cancer, thus free will cannot be an explanation for the suffering.
"what are you comparing to? Some electrical signals your brain tells you is the ideal body control mechanism configuration?'
Is this a real reply? We know what normal successful mitosis looks like. Cancer is a failure of this system, why does that possibly occur? Analogously, you brought up gravity. it would be as though everything in the universe follows the laws of gravity except for one thing, why? Why allow for that exception?
My point is this is far better explained by a universe that doesn't care about us, then a deity that does.
Totally agree with this. If there would be a form of Christianity I would subscribe to, it would be a Hart-esque universalist one.
@SlamScum Perhaps he values creatures having earthly experiences.
@SlamScum Of course it would.
"Would 30 minutes of agonizing torture really matter in the face of the 410,200,000,000 you already have? So I can torture you without it being a moral issue."
Do you see how moronic this is?
Having X small experience, regardless of the length of the total experience, doesn't make X not matter. That doesn't follow
@SlamScum Oh yeah definitely, there are still many questions I would have even if Christian Universalism would be true like the one you posited. Probably there are interesting responses to it that I haven’t thoroughly delved into. Still, I just think it has the potential to untangle the cataclysmic contradiction of eternal torture in the face of an all-loving God.
@SlamScum It's kinda simple bud. It's an example of suffering. It doesn't become trivial with time.
@SlamScum Often yes. That's how ptsd works.
Depends on the extent, particularly gratuitous evils yes. Trivial things maybe less so
What about a monotheistic God that is not all good? Arguments for a a deistic type God become very compelling when you no longer have to defend eternal torment.
When you start to learn that "fear" simply means REVERENCE, and that "wrath and sometimes, the "wrath of God" is CALAMITY or TRIBULATION that happens more directly as a result of the CONDEMNATION (DAMNATION) that Adam demised us to, our sins that cause us to stumble and MISS THE MARK.
How do you deal with the explanation that for example those who were born into a non-Christian culture would not have believed if they were born in a Christian culture? I mean it's clearly post-hoc but is there a better way to respond to that?
Wow, nice to hear such an unbiased, open minded, neutral sharing of where you are at. Christianity has so much denominations and only a small niche is on the right track. A big part of this is the mis-translation of eternal. Watch my 1st video , in it is A.E Knoch's description and English versions eonian/eon/eons. I'll be doing a more detailed video on it in the future. The channel Total Victory of Christ will be a good resource in the meantime (The best explanation out there on "eternal"). My first video only dips in it briefly. Mis-translations and not understanding the sovereignty and nature of God are at the base here. Watch out for common English bible translations. Read Concordant Literal, and Young's Literal and be surprised. God bless.
When our psychological sanity hinges on the grammatical conjugation of a suffix then I think we should reconsider what we give authority over our minds.
oh it's much more than that. The kjb is littered with error, deceptions and mis-translations.Getting down into the Hebrew and Greek is essential for a proper understanding and coming to a model that is sound and logical. The bible is mostly to Israel, but humanity is in there. @@333_studios
Amen brother, for anybody interested in this idea study the plan of salvation from the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormonism)
I also don’t believe the 10 Commandments were meant for everyone, I think they were meant for a certain people at a certain time. I’m not a monotheist.
Hell (hel, hell) is a mistranslation from the Hebrew word, sheol, which meant the unseen or the realm of the dead, and also from the words, gehenna and hades, not of which had anything to do with an afterlife of suffering.
"The perfect being isn't what you'd expect" - what do you expect? What are your expectations built on?
The expectations are built on the reasoning faculties that have been given to us by God (if indeed God exists and has determined how we think). Using our God given reason, we can evaluate what a divine being would probably be like if he is all perfect, all good etc. It's remarkably easy to conclude that an all good God would have no desire to create a world that would lead to an outcome of eternal suffering for most of his subjects. As that is the opposite of what the moral intuitions he has provided us lead us to believe.
If our moral intuitions are flawed because of sin, that would mean the horror we all naturally feel at billions of people never being redeemed or saved, and yet still continuing to exist in mental and possibly physical agony forever is a sinful intuition. And yet the feelings one experiences when they think about how awful hell is stem from our basic compassion and empathy for human beings. You'd have to conclude God, who is morally perfect, has less love and compassion for those in hell than the average human being.
@@BavidDigg It seems that you're presupposing a belief you don't have (and don't fully understand) to build ontop of and make a claim.
What are you basing your expectations on?
@@Z3rk I already said this is based on human rational, which if God exists he had given me to use to find him (or he is tricking me and I'll never find him using it).
It is the exact same human reasoning that you have used to conclude one needs a standard to evaluate anything.
But go on then, give me a lecture about how little I understand.
@@Z3rk It sounds like you're describing God as rationally, emotionally, and morally incomprehensible. Sounds like something out of Lovecraft, no?
@@josephtnied something like that. To get my head wrapped around the belief of a being outside of time and space, I like to think of how running a complex simulation would be like (I'm a software developer).
If I create a simulation with simpler consciessnesses (simpler than the average human, slightly more advanced than let's say an ape), I could communicate with them that hey I'm the creator, I run complex algorithms to keep track of everything you do (like Facebook might) and whether or not you meet these criteria you will be moved to the newer simulation, which will be better. "
Being simpler consciousnesses, they might not be able to understand my plan, what I am, and how things are. But they may have gathered enough to get the basics, and relay the information. The simpler consciousnesses might not even have the capability to understand the simulation situation, because it's so outside of everything they could know.
Catholic means Universal. I’m a Unitarian Universalist but I love folk Catholicism & Catholic prayer.
God loves the heretic - UU Quote
Is there a relationship between the qualities mankind has given to God(s) and human psychology?
Is it plausible because it's a successful theodicy? Why couldn't God be a narcissist who wants his creation to think very highly of him (omni qualities) when he doesn't possess any of those qualities? I mean that possibility should be in the running too....
good point
First of all Christianity by definition is the belief in Jesus Christ hint "CHRIST"anity ! Therefore this is a discussion of theology on the belief in the one true God.
You can't be a Christian and not know by definition a Christian is one that believes that Jesus of Nazareth is Christ the Son of God and that "whom so ever believeth in him shall not parish but have ever lasting life"; John 3:16!
Atheism has just as much problems and more than theism I think read some of Keith Wards books he is very good with this stuff🙏
Jesus & Jesusness
A 6000 year history of the world and a fall wouldn't do anything to change how the world is today. There is far more moral chaos in every day of this world than could ever make sense if the universe were controlled by a perfect being. If all this moral chaos were a result of the fall, then the fall would never have been permitted to happen by a perfect being, and permitting this moral chaos to go on for thousands of years would be ridiculous. Whether it is thousands of years or millions of years, it still makes no sense.
There is a whole other problem, even if we set aside the problem of evil. The problem of evil seems like perfectly straight-forward and obvious reasoning, but maybe I could be making some foolish mistake in that reasoning. It would not be my first foolish mistake. Even without the problem of evil, we still face the problem that this whole story of a perfect being comes entirely from people, and people are obviously not a reliable source. These are almost all people who literally worship this being as part of their religion. It is their duty to praise this being and kiss the feet of this being, and these are the people who are telling us that this being is perfect. It is difficult to imagine a more biased source of information, so there is no way that I would ever believe them just because they say so. Since there is no other reason available, we would be fools to believe it.
Yeah, it's not a good theodicy. What I like about it is the general strategy of trying to subsume natural evil under the category of moral evil. So if you can explain why God would permit us to have serious freedom, then some of the heavy lifting has already been done when you turn to natural evil and dysteleology.
"Wrong morally" by what standard...?
Read metaethics.
By what standard is it morally justifiable?
I believe the disciples were biased in how they recorded Jesus’ teachings because they wanted his legacy to be supreme. I think Jesus was more like Buddha & he never actually believed in exclusivity.
It seems like the only way to identify a coherent version of Christianity is to make one up a la carte. Where is "God" in this bespoke human-invented version? I think the fact that we have to hack something together is a sound defeater of the whole thing.
I don't think that's true, exactly. The kind of universalism defended by DBH (he claims) has roots that go back to the earliest Christians. He offers historical and textual arguments in defense of that claim, and explains why he thinks the tradition changed so dramatically centuries later.
I don't think there's a name for the kind of Christianity I'm outlining because it's fairly minimalist, not because it's à la carte.
@@EmersonGreen I think ‘inclusivism’ is the label for that Lewis/Stump view you’re mentioning.
Yeah, universalism doesn’t immediately make it clear why the degree and kind of evil allowed is what it is - but I suspect it has something to do with how new persons are created in a such a way that they have the ‘space’ to have genuine journeys of development from nothing and immaturity, to make decisions, wrestle with the consequences and the deeper mysteries, learn the hard lessons, become fully mature participants in Love and rationality. Seems like the right balance of revelation vs divine hiddenness has to be struck to give enough Light in the darkness without totally overwhelming it and squashing the genuine development. The kind of thing I’m mulling over anyway in attempting to think about a coherent picture. But I think you’re absolutely right on ECT and CI being incoherent and UR squaring things up considerably in terms of both scripture and philosophy. I’m with DBH on that!
( Will Christians And Jews and "OTHER" non-Muslims go to Heaven? )
Quran 2:62
'' Those who believe (in the Quran) and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures) and the Christians and the Sabians->ANYAllah< Is The Protector Of Monasteries, Churches, Synagogues And The Mosques )
Quran 22:40
[They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, " Our Lord is God " And were it not that God checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of God is much mentioned. And God will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, God is Powerful and Exalted in Might.
Note: Why did Allah protected Churches and Synagogues if they worship false Allah ?
( Why Are There So Many Different Religions In The World ? )
Quran 5 48
''...... If God wanted He could have made all of you a single nation.( ie single religion ) But He willed otherwise in order to test you in what He has given you (ie Scriptures) therefore try to excel one another in good deeds. Ultimately you all shall return to God then He will show you the truth of those matters in which you '' >DISPUTE verb < not noun like other religions
Islam mean "submission" to God
( The above verse saying is that God will not accept a religion from the >MUSLIM< and the Non-Muslims but total "submission" to God )
Question: How Can Muslim And the Non-Muslim "submit" to the God?
Answer: Be kind to other human beings and Do not lie, Do not steal, Do not cheat, Do not hurt others, Do not be prideful and Do the charity work.
Note: If you obeyed all the ABOVE Allah-God's moral laws "YOU" submitted to God.( ie Islam mean "submission" to God )
The only people who will enter Paradise those who '' Submitted to God '' ( ie by Good Deeds )
God does NOT accept your religion of birth but only ''Your Total'' Submission to Him.
( God Allows Interfaith Marriages And Eat Food From the Christian And Jew And Vice Versa )
Quran 5:5
''This day [all] good foods have been made lawful, and the food of those who were given the Scripture (ie Christian and Jew) is lawful for you and your food is lawful for them. And lawful in marriage are chaste women from among the believers (ie Muslim ) and chaste women from among those who were given the Scripture (ie Christian and Jew) before you, when you have given them their due compensation, desiring chastity not unlawful sexual intercourse or taking [secret] lovers. And whoever denies the faith - his work has become worthless and he in the Hereafter will be among the losers.''
Note: > Only < Islam allows interfaith marriages (>14 hundredsSame God< but They are >ALL Corrupt< more or less, some more than others from their original foundational teaching. The older religion are MORE corrupted than newer religion.
Question to Muslim and Christian:
Does God / Allah only answer your pray ?
And God / Allah does not answer non Muslim / non Christian pray?
Did Allah '' Canceled '' all other religions Judaism and Christianity?
Quran 5:48
'' And We have revealed to you [O Muhammad] the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture ( ie New and old Testament ) and as a criterion over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. >>>TO EACH OF YOU WE PRESCRIBED A LAW AND A METHODone nation>differ qualified < for to enter Paradise )
On the day of judgement God will ''NOT'' judge humanity bases on Sunni Muslim sect VS Shia Muslim sect ''NOR'' by Muslim VS non-Muslim >but< Doer of Goods VS Doer of Evils.
'' YOUR " birth in the Muslim's family is NOT a > qualification < for to enter the Paradise.
'' YOUR " religion / sect / foot long beard is NOT a > qualification < for to enter the Paradise.
The > qualification < to enter Paradise is > Faith in God and Good Work
Alhamdulillah brother
The word hell is NOT capitalized, therefore it's NOT a proper noun. HELL is a mistranslation. You have an abundance of resources to narrow down the strongest of possibilities in the fastest and most efficient way by utilizing the internet to understand where these erroneous translations are rooted from. God can never officially be ALL IN ALL (1 Cor. 15:28) if most of his creation is consigned to endless misery and Jesus Christ can't legitimately be called the SAVIOR OF THE WORLD (1 John 4:14) if only a few are saved and all the rest are toast! According to God, true justice is to show compassion and mercy to to everyone (Zechariah 7:9). I don't believe God is a hypocrite, and neither is Jesus for saying to always forgive others (Matthew 18:21-22). There's no way around it. God will "...have ALL men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:4) :)
God did reveal himself to people and it didn't work.
its unbiblical, and heretic
;(
which means it might be true
Come on Otangelo don't you want to hang out with all of us in heaven?
@@BavidDigg i wish all men to be saved.
@@reasonandsciencecatsboardcom nice as long God also wishes that all men will be