I found another inconsistency with mainstream Christianity:

>you only get one life
>you are born unusually short, weak, mentally deranged or otherwise unlucky
>meanwhile others will live normal or even blissful lives
>despite the fact that everyone gets one shot and one only, we don't all live similar lives

This is a clear violation of the Due Process clause.
A God who preventively and arbitrarily humiliates innocent souls is clearly not good

>>17763261 (OP)
>god makes me gay
>forbids me for seeking relationships that will fulfill me
WTF is his problem

>>17763261 (OP)
These people with disabilities and illness usually end up closer to God than those who were gifted with health or intelligence.

>>17763266
How come?

If somebody is born a psychopath like their neurons are all messes up, kills somebody and gets sent to hell. Was that all part of God's plan?

>>17763283
They have to struggle to achieve things that are completely normal for you and me, they live in a world that isnt made for them so they find solace in Gods guidance and aid even if they were given a heavy lot. People who are beautiful, intelligent, strong, healthy usually dont appreciate this gift and fall into the devils snare.
We take something as simple as walking as a given, as something we are entitled to when there are others who were never given that ability or lost it in their life.

>>17763290
Been thinking of this.
We just assume everyone is capable of understanding a specific set of moral values, but some people simply don't have the right brain to get a proper clue

>>17763298
>They have to struggle to achieve things that are completely normal for you and me
Okay
>they live in a world that isnt made for them
Sure
>so they find solace in Gods guidance and aid
What sort of guidance and aid are they getting?

>>17763261 (OP)
Since the point is to love God. The love from those who's life is hard is worth more to God than the love from those who's life is easy. So if anything the disadvantaged have a greater opportunity to earn God's love by loving God in their necessity.

>>17763290
>somebody is born a psychopath like their neurons are all messes up
No such thing.

>>17763332
Ask them.

>>17763369
>The love from those who's life is hard is worth more to God than the love from those who's life is easy.
And you should love God because.... ?

>>17763261 (OP)
Kek they actually believe if you are an ugly short poor incel and rape a bitch you will go to hell.
Meanwhile Chad, who can easily get women and doesn't need to rape, but would rape in your place goes to heaven.

Absolute cuck religion for retards, same goes for poor people stealing or any unfortunates doing any sin like drinking cause your life is miserable.
Someone with a good life finds it easier to not sin.

>>17763807
He is awesome.

>Due Process clause
>applied to divine providence
>on 4chan
kek
You're projecting modern liberal legal categories onto metaphysics. God is not a bureaucratic administrator beholden to an Enlightenment-era constitution. He's the Creator, not a judge in your imagined cosmic courtroom.

>one shot and one only
Yes. One life. But you're assuming life is a neutral game where fairness means equality of outcomes. That’s Enlightenment nonsense. Christianity never promised fairness in this world. It promises justice in the next. Temporal inequalities are a test, not a final judgment. Some carry heavier crosses. So what? Christ Himself suffered humiliation, torture, and death. Was that unjust? By your standard, yes. But by God's? It was salvific.

>"Humiliates innocent souls"
No one is born “innocent” in the full theological sense. We inherit original sin. Grace is a gift, not a right. If someone is born with burdens, that doesn’t mean God is punishing them. It means they’ve been entrusted with a greater trial. And often, those who suffer most on earth are first in heaven.

The problem isn’t with Christianity. It’s with your assumptions about what God owes you. He owes us nothing. That He offers anything (life, grace, redemption) is already mercy beyond measure.

>>17763261 (OP)
Not only that. Why does life in the material realm matter so much? What about all the other manifestations of my soul , why do I have no knowledge of this and why is it not considered when my relatively short and insignificant material existence comes to an end ?

It doesn't make sense until you realise Christianity is and always was a tool to get the masses to do what a minority elite want them to do without kicking off.

>>17763894
I'm close to agreeing with your points on this, anon. I would modify what you say with one point however:

- Every person's condemnation is based on their actual offenses and sins (see John 3:18-19, Romans 3:20-26, 7:9). It isn't based on some abstract thing that they had no control over. You truly cannot shift the blame, on this point, to someone else – nor can Augustine of Hippo or whoever claimed to be writing for him, when they came up with that concept. We have to face the fact that we were really made guilty because of our own actions and choices. In other words, inheriting sin nature (e.g. Romans 5:19, Ephesians 2:3) is not equal to inheriting so-called original sin.

>>17764023
I appreciate the thoughtful tone, but I’ve got to push back here. Not out of hostility, but because this is a critical line where orthodoxy stands or falls.

>no one is damned except for actual sin
True. The Church has always affirmed that. But you’re splitting a distinction Scripture and Tradition do not. Romans 5:12-19 isn’t just about inherited "nature" in some metaphorical sense. Paul explicitly says “in Adam all sinned.” That’s not poetic language. That’s federal headship. Adam's fall affects the whole human race really, not symbolically. Original sin isn't just bad spiritual genetics, it’s a juridical rupture in our standing before God.

The Council of Trent (Session V) defined this clearly: Adam’s sin is transmitted not by imitation but by propagation. It’s not just our bad choices, it’s our broken inheritance. That’s why infants are baptized. Not because they’ve committed acts of sin, but because they’re born under the curse of Adam. This isn’t Augustine’s innovation. It’s the unanimous teaching of the Fathers (both East and West) codified long before any "Augustinian exaggeration" claim started circulating.

>you cannot shift the blame
Agreed, but the doctrine of original sin doesn’t do that. It’s not blaming you for Adam’s guilt. It’s stating that human nature as a whole fell with him. And unless we’re healed by grace, we remain alienated from God, even before we commit personal sin. It may be hard medicine, but it’s also the foundation of the Gospel: we need a Redeemer because we are born fallen.

>>17764038
I'll remain with Paul in Romans 7:9 for sure on this one.

>because this is a critical line where orthodoxy stands or falls.
Orthodoxy is defined as believing the genuine doctrines taught in the Scriptures.

>>17763844
What did he do exactly?
What are his well-known achievements?

>>17763387
It seems you already asked them, so... care to share their replies?

>>17763894
Due Process is the cornerstone of civilization.
Both on Earth and in Heaven.
Even a god deserves to be dethroned if Due Process is suspended indefinitely

>>17764056
>Orthodoxy is defined as believing the genuine doctrines taught in the Scriptures.
Sure, but here’s the issue: who decides what the "genuine" doctrines are? You're relying on Scripture alone, yet Scripture wasn’t dropped from the sky with a divine commentary attached. The canon itself was defined by the Church you’re now distancing yourself from. To affirm the Scriptures while rejecting the Church’s interpretive authority is like keeping the blueprint while setting fire to the architect’s office.

>Romans 7:9
>“I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died.”
Fair, but context matters. Paul isn’t describing a chronological autobiography of innocence. He’s illustrating how the Law, by illuminating sin, brings death to the self-righteous. It’s a phenomenological description, not a theological proof that children are born sinless. Romans 5 remains the cornerstone here. Paul repeatedly states that death reigned even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam. That’s original sin in action.

>I’ll remain with Paul
So will I. But with the Paul who says “we were by nature children of wrath” (Eph 2:3), not just the one verse that sounds more palatable. Scripture isn’t a buffet line. It’s a whole, and the early Church read it as such.

>>17764180
>>17764180
>tries to drag a divine, eternal, omniscient Being before a human rights tribunal
>accuses the Creator of the universe of procedural misconduct
>calls for a coup in Heaven

You're completely off the rails, smuggling in post-Enlightenment liberal categories and trying to apply them to the absolute, transcendent justice of God. It's ike trying to measure gravity with a thermometer. Divine justice is not a courtroom where God plays judge by the rules we made up after the French Revolution. It’s the origin and measure of all justice in the first place.

>even a god deserves to be dethroned
Except you can’t "dethrone" the One who is the throne. God isn’t just the king. We exist because He wills us to. If you want to revolt against Him, you’re free to try. But you’re not storming a palace, you’re sawing off the branch you’re sitting on.

>>17764206
Due Process is much older than the French Revolution

>>17764204
>It’s a whole, and the early Church read it as such.
Yeah, it's a whole, and also doesn't contradict. Which means you never get a case where a statement is overruled by another one somewhere else.

>Paul repeatedly states that death reigned even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam.
Sin nature, biblical concept.

>The canon itself was defined by the Church
More like realized by the church. In Titus 1:3, we are told that God manifested His word through preaching. We don't get to decide what is inspired by God or not, it's already decided. No group of people on earth ever did decide it because it was determined in eternity past by the true Author.
>The canon itself was defined by the Church you’re now distancing yourself from.
The KJV is based on authentic manuscripts, in the original languages, that were passed down by faithful men from generation to generation. They were certainly not involved in the business of adding apocrypha or in corrupting Scripture in other ways.

>You're relying on Scripture alone,
Not according to John 16:13.

And as it says in 2 Peter 1:20, no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

>You're relying on Scripture alone, yet Scripture wasn’t dropped from the sky with a divine commentary attached.
It says in Matthew 23, "But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren."

And in Psalm 71, "O God, thou hast taught me from my youth: and hitherto have I declared thy wondrous works."

>>17764247
Sure, but it’s still a human concept rooted in temporal justice. God’s justice isn’t modeled on ours. Ours is a dim reflection of His, not the standard He answers to. Trying to hold the Creator to created legal norms is like suing gravity for not being fair.

>>17764250
>Yeah, it's a whole, and also doesn't contradict.
Agreed. Scripture is unified and inerrant. But non-contradiction doesn’t mean flat literalism. It means harmony in truth, even across layers of meaning. Paul’s teaching on original sin complements his views on personal guilt. It does not contradict them. You're trying to force a false binary.

>Sin nature, biblical concept.
Sure, but sin nature without original guilt is like describing symptoms without admitting the disease. Paul doesn’t just say we tend toward sin. He says we’re born under its reign (Rom 5:17-19). That’s more than moral weakness. That’s legal and spiritual alienation requiring redemption.

>The canon was realized, not decided
God authored the Scriptures, yes. But humans recognized which books belonged, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The canon didn’t self-assemble. If you trust Titus 1:3, great. But that preaching was preserved and clarified through the Church. That’s the same Church that warned against spurious writings and defined the limits of Scripture in the 4th century.

>The KJV is based on authentic manuscripts
Respectfully, this is revisionist. The KJV relies heavily on the 'Textus Receptus,' which itself was compiled from a limited manuscript base in the 16th century. Not heretical, but hardly the sole standard of fidelity. The early Church had no KJV. They had tradition, Greek, Latin, and apostolic teaching.

>Not according to John 16:13
The Spirit leads the Church into truth, not every individual reader into their personal infallible theology. Otherwise, you end up with 40,000 denominations, all claiming the Spirit.

>no prophecy...is of private interpretation
Exactly. That’s why you need the interpretive authority of the Church, not just private judgment.

>One is your Master, even Christ
Amen. But Christ entrusted His teaching to apostles, who then ordained successors. That’s not rabbinic pride, but apostolic order.

>>17764253
Your God scares me.
He sounds like a limitless tyrant who does as he pleases

>>17764259
>But Christ entrusted His teaching to apostles, who then ordained successors.
According to John 17, it says He entrusted His "word" to them. See John 17:14, 17:20 for example. That's what we have now through the Bible.

"But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."
- 1 Peter 1:25

With regards to this Paul also ordered that we follow only that which we have received from them.

"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
- 2 Thessalonians 3:6

And that refers again to the word of God.

"For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe."
- 1 Thessalonians 2:16

"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself."
- 1 Timothy 6:3-5

We see then that all men, no matter who, must consent to the words of our Lord and Savior, which are found in the word of God. If they do not, then I am to withdraw from them, according to Paul, who was speaking by inspiration of God. According to 2 Thess. 2:15, it is no different than if Paul were here right now, saying not to listen to those who do not consent to the word of God (2 Thess. 3:6, 1 Timothy 6:3). I am obviously going to take that as a greater authority than anything else. As should everyone if they care about their own best interest. Cont'd.

>>17764306
>The Spirit leads the Church into truth, not every individual reader into their personal infallible theology.
There are no personal theologies, that's the whole point. That is why I quoted 2 Peter 1:20 and you agreed. The Holy Spirit shall guide us into all truth, according to John 16:13. And in 1 John 2:27 it says, "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."

>Otherwise, you end up with 40,000 denominations, all claiming the Spirit.
To claim something is not equal to actually receiving it. The Holy Spirit is real, hence all those who are guided by Him – as God, the Person who inspired the Scriptures – arrive at the same truth. It all works because God is actually and literally real, anon.

>That’s the same Church that warned against spurious writings and defined the limits of Scripture in the 4th century.
You know that Scripture was already inspired long before the 500s AD, right? A group of people who could not tell the difference between apocrypha and inspired truth obviously makes no difference to this, as I mentioned before.
>The early Church had no KJV.
They had the original language manuscripts that it was based on.

Because they have consistently safeguarded Scripture, the church is rightfully called the pillar and ground of the truth, according to 1 Timothy 3:15. That's what they were entrusted with, according to Jude 1:3. It's called, "the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." And Christ confirms that the gates of hell will never prevail against His church (Matthew 16:18, Matthew 28:20).

>>17763844
Every tyrant thinks of himself as awesome

They wouldn't want to be tyrants otherwise

>>17764314
God is awesome.

>>17763261 (OP)
>Be me
>Short autistic manlet incel
>I'm held to the same standard as the 6'2" NT chad who fucks a new girl every saturday
>Chad can sin as much as he wants and everything is forgiven the second he repents and "turns to Jesus"
>He gets to live a life of bliss, breaking all the rules and getting away with it

god is a retard

>>17764488
None of that is true.

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting."
- Galatians 6:7-8

>>17764488
>>17764499
Nice dubs to the both of you.

The Chad will feel the consequences of his actions, trust me, both in this life and/or the next. I have felt the consequences of my actions directly related to lust and sexual activity.

This matter of sexual conduct is of some trouble to me. I understand it, and have felt it, I feel a new moral responsibility to god now that I know in detail the magnitude of my actions. In some ways, I find a sort of peace and freedom from detaching myself from this world.

On the other hand, right now, for me, there is no clear path forward to express my sexuality in a way that honours god. Both that I am not ready for that sort of arrangement personally and have much to grow, but mostly that there seem to be no actual opportunities to do so in the world today, and that brings me to why I am writing this, I seek some spiritual guidance.

While I do believe and love in god and believe in the forgiveness of sin and not taking gods grace for granted, I also am half-hearted in my faith. I do not reject god, nor do I disbelieve in gods existence, but I genuinely find it hard to accept that god will take care of me and that I will be forced to sin.

Religion is bullshit, yes

You dont have to listen to anything cult leaders tell you.

You do not have to obey their laws.

They are not divine beings.

They are not gods.

They do not speak to or for or from any god.

There are only 3 ontological categories:
1.The natural world
2. The physical world created by humans
3. Subjective mental phenomenon

If you start thinking category 3 is more important than 1 and 2, you can start becoming delusional and detatch from reality.

Some will teach category 3 is more real than categories 1 and 2, this includes the buddhists, mystics, and various "everything is conciousness" types.
Be cautious. Category 3 is the abyss where reason can break down. The realm of the paranormal, of phantasms and specters and superstitons and curses and gods and devils. Prophecies of end times, etc etc. Category 3 is the lowest certainty zone. You can freely ignore category 3 if you like, it makes life easier.

I have had many bizarre category 3 experiences and I am finished with them. There is enough to concern oneself with in category 1 and 2 reality than to waste ones life pondering category 3.

The christians will do nothing but endlessly quote bible verses in vain repetition, magically thinking they can control all reality with a book.

If your cult leaders do nothing but guilt trip you over your natural inclinations and cant perform any useful miracles, maybe you shouldnt care about making their powerless "god" happy.

>>17764499
Notice how this verse is self evidently false?

Christians dont live forever. They die the same as anyone else.

>>17765644
The evil sort of christian will invent imagined threats of various afterlife tortures for sins, same as the muslim, same as any of the evil control freak religions. You are free to ignore them and their "spirit".

The christian will also excuse any sin by his cult leader. Forgiveness for me but not for thee!

>>17763261 (OP)
I wouldn't call that an inconsistency but it's something worth thinking about. One of the things related to the problem of suffering that I don't think is talked about enough is the inequality of suffering. Even if the theist offers an explanation for how suffering is good actually (e.g. it builds character) they should also justify why some people's lives are filled with unbearable suffering and other people suffer only a little, being robbed of the "benefits" of suffering.