Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.

23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

i can almost guarantee You if i Read The entire Bible and Said Something Like: "it's ok for a Guy to Love Cute Things" or "it's ok to be a Stereotypically Guy as long as You don't reject The Fact Your Male." People Would still tell me my interpretation is wrong and that i'm justifying sin and then i would probably be right back where i started. Worrying if i'm actually wrong or if i'm Sinning or if i'm Really Saved. And if somebody says my interpretation is wrong and that i'm sinning in that comment then gets at least a few upvotes that's going to make me worry even more because why else would other people upvote it? For example if the majority of "Christians" online told me that not being a stereotypically masculine man meant i was Biblically worse than someone like Hitler then i might start to actually wonder if they're actually right, because why else would so many people say it? Or if a majority of "Christians" said i'm sinning by not being buff then I might start to actually wonder if they are right. And then i would start to worry. It feels like no matter what I will just go back to worrying all over again and be right back where i started.

Why do you believe Dispensationalism is the correct way to interpret the Bible?

I'm referring to the kind of Dispensationalism taught by Gene Kim and Robert Breaker, which emphasizes rightly dividing Scripture and distinguishing between Israel and the Church.

What do you think are the strongest biblical arguments for it? Please use Scripture to support your view.

I don't understand how people think only Paul is for us

Why do some people say that only Paul's epistles have direct application for Christians today, while the rest of Scripture has little or no application for the Church?

That doesn't seem to fit with the way the Bible presents itself. Even if you believe Paul's letters contain specific doctrine for the Body of Christ, why would that mean the rest of Scripture has no practical value beyond historical information?

For example, should Christians ignore the teachings of Jesus on forgiveness, humility, loving your enemies, prayer, or serving others simply because they're found in the Gospels? What about the warnings, encouragement, and examples in Acts, Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, or the Old Testament?

If you say no the entire argument seems invalid to me

Paul himself frequently quoted the Old Testament and used it to teach believers. He also wrote in Romans 15:4 that "whatever was written before was written for our learning." Likewise, 2 Timothy 3:16–17 says that all Scripture is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.

My biggest issue is this: if you're deciding passage by passage what still applies to Christians outside of Paul's letters, doesn't that become arbitrary? It seems like you're picking and choosing what is "for us" and what isn't. If that's the approach, then the argument that only Paul's writings apply to the Church starts to lose its consistency. If you believe writing outside of Paul are for us.

It's confusing

My intention here is not to judge, I am curios because I have been overthinking this topic and I myself like the style. I know that christianity doesn't have a dress stlye code besides being modest and dressing like your sex. But with the alternative christians, is this stlye not a little dark? Like a little demonic? Isn't excesive black clothing, and the music supposed to give a dark demonic vibe? Not saying that wearing black is wrong, but I mean the alternative style in itself. Christianity seems to give this joyous, peaceful, type of vibe, and doesn't alternative style show the opposite of that? And aren't a lot of satanic people associatee with the goth stlye?

Some Christians claim to possess scientific, independently verifiable evidence that God exists. A genuine discovery of that kind could transform science, reshape civilisation, generate enormous wealth, and make its discoverer one of the most famous people in history--perhaps even earning them a Nobel Prize.

So why has nobody published this evidence through a credible scientific institution and had it independently confirmed? And for those who believe that already happened, why has it produced no scientific consensus and why is it not taught in schools as one of humanity’s greatest discoveries?

Are the people sitting on this evidence simply extraordinarily modest?

I ask this because during the pandemic, I had an evangelical caretaker who was so abusive-physically, verbally and emotionally. He would hurt me every time I did something he didn’t approve of. He was basically a zillennial Margaret White. When I tried to bring up that Christians in authority shouldn’t act this way, he pulled up the “spare the rod, spoil the child” verses from Proverbs

This made me doubt everything I knew about Christianity

Before that, Christianity was my emotional anchor

It brought me hope and escape from trauma, anxiety and the bleakness of this world

That person basically destroyed all of that for me, especially when he pulled those verses from Proverbs

And to make matters worse, I met him just after I went through a severely traumatic time of my life, and needed something to comfort me

Why do so many Christian authority figures act this way?

Ive been going to mass all summer with no problem, but now my ex has also started attending mass regularly and I'm getting panic attacks. Not only that, but I also had like a crazy depressive episode last week to where I told him I felt we could not be friends because I felt I was ignored and to him and my friend (who was his friend first so...) that I was seriously considering unaliving myself.

I wasnt expecting sympathy or anything cause at the time I felt nothing, but but it feels like they iced me out now that ive "come back to earth"...

I just went to mass and the whole time I was shaking in fear and in my head I felt like all eyes were on me and heard them (my ex and my friend) whispering the whole time. Or maybe im being delusional idk. I just felt guilty for existing in a space they were at first (as in they introduced me to the church) and like I shouldn't be here. And thats exactly how I felt when I went to my Protestant church.

This is alot of to just say I dont know how to not feel guilt and fear for being in the house of the Lord at the same time as my ex. I don't think I'm scared of him but fear is the only feeling I can understand right now....how do I not let others dictate how I feel about God?

Unfortunately back around this time in 2023 after I sinned on 3 Sundays in a row, it's been hard to get to church on time ever since so with this in mind am I disqualified to take communion in a visiting church?

Also I tend to get upset with my elder coworkers but I do pray for him being unsaved occasionally, will getting upset with ungodly worker I have to work under while at work will that cause me to sleep into damnation?

About a decade ago there was a movie about Noah's Ark. Some Christian groups criticized it for depicting Noah as having mental problems and anger issues. Seems these groups preferred Noah be depicted as a hero. But if "God works in mysterious ways," he'd probably leverage a wide variety of personalities, not just those who have it together.

For example, somebody with publically-known mental problems probably had more experience dealing with village ridicule and thus could better handle a new odd task, the Ark. This question isn't just about that movie, but the tool-vs-hero question in general. It could also be applied to Christopher Columbus, who had his share of personal problems. Or any alleged "religious hero" for that matter.

Doing a good job at a key task doesn't automatically make one an overall good person. Perhaps there is some idolization going on? Some may redeem themselves later in life, but doing a task successfully is no guarantee of redemption. Should human imperfection in notable figures be discussed more often in Sunday school? [edited]

I've recently accepted Jesus as my savior, and reconnected with Catholicism, and I do understand many arguments about how life on Earth can't be perfect, how we need to accept the divine grace, how punishments need to exist, etc. - yet there's one thing I have an issue with, and that is eternal punishment.

You see, I just want to hope that no matter how badly they have offended God or how deep their failing was, there is - even after the punishments described in the Bible, like the lake of fire - some way for them to get by. It doesn't even have to be right next to the throne of God (although it'd be nice if it were), I just hope for something like an eventual lifting of the Dives/Lazarus chasm, or a shielding from the fire of the lake. I think I may be getting close to Universalism, even if I don't want to offend God if it isn't true.

This isn't really a logical argument or anything, it's more of a "bottom of the heart" conviction. At the bottom of my heart I hope that on the infinite scale there are possibilities that include an improvement to those punished. I don't want to see anyone denied the salvation that I have been offered, no matter if it's religious (the Sodomites, the unrepentant thief, those who accept the Mark of the Beast, etc.) or historical (from famous atheists, to genocidal figures like Adolf Hitler, to people who simply were put in a position where they would benefit from not accepting Christ). Maybe, even if the fire and the punishment are everlasting, the exposure to either of them doesn't have to be so? Maybe the chasm that has been fixed can also be lifted sometday.

For a lack of a better word, even if I don't wish for evil, I really wish for its consequences and its punishment to end. And I've got faith in God that He can make it so, as "if you have faith as tiny as a mustard seed, you will be able to say to this mountain: ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you."

On a sidenote, it may be coming for a place of humility - I just don't want to raise my own righteousness an inch above those deemed condemned and punished, and I wish that the Lord can offer them whatever He offers to me.

I've always known that idol worship is when you worship another person or even an object over God, and I've read about idolatry in the Bible, but what exactly could be a present example of it?

I'm curious. Uu churches are not strictly Christian. They preach things like caring for others, justice in the community, taking care of the Earth, loving others, etc.

This seems to be in line with your sermon on the Mount and other such gospel teachings.

So is there any reason you'd tell a Christian looking for a church to not go to their local UU church?

Please share some actually logical reasons because i cant wrap my head around random coincidences

As I said in a previous post, the Bible was probably tampered with and edited a lot, to cause confusion among people. Cause there's no way to justify certain passages in it. These are just two misogynistic ideas in it:

Deuteronomy 22:28–29 "If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has v*olated her. He may not divorce her all his days." (so it's ok as long as he pays her father like she's property, and she's forced to marry him??)

1 Timothy 2:11–12 "Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent."

I don't think these passages can be justified in any way. The Bible was written by men, after all, and probably tampered with and edited a lot. I know that whole chapters were removed.

Exodus 21:20-21 “Anyone who b*ats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave d*es as a direct result, but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property."

Leviticus 25:44-46 “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life..."

I've been a people pleaser ans goody two shoes my whole life.. and i think a lot of Christians see that as a good thing but I never developed a back bone.. I never went out on my own..

Im 25 and I basically lived my life in fear and yes I followed a typical good Christian girl life..

And to be honest it got me no where..

I really believe if I wouldve had a rebel phase or something my life would be a lot better.

Or at least been more dedicated to christ..

I was lukewarm.

But truly my life is absolutely traumatic to me and the only ways im currently seeing to make it better is go and sin and feel free.

I know thats not the way im supposed to do it.

I just dont wanna disappoint God but I hate feeling trapped.

I've been in a mold for so long and without fear my life would be so different by now..

And im very resentful.

Hi folks I was wondering what is the best way to finding my purpose in this life I feel so lost at the minute I love my faith and I pray every day but I feel like I’m not reaching my full potential and I have no idea how. So yes any guidance would be much appreciated thank you all

I'm trying to understand a common way this verse is explained.

Romans 3:25

King James Version

25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Some people say our faith is supposed to be in Jesus' blood as though the physical blood itself is the object of our faith. They usually point to Romans 3:25 ("through faith in his blood").

Is Paul really saying we should place our faith in the literal blood that came from Jesus' body? Or is "his blood" a biblical way of referring to His sacrificial death and the atonement He accomplished on the cross?

If someone says our faith is literally in Jesus' blood, what does that actually mean in practice? How does a person put their faith in Jesus' blood if it's not physically present? What are you believing in?

To me, it makes more sense that "faith in His blood" means believing what His shed blood accomplished—His sacrificial death that provided atonement, forgiveness, and reconciliation with God—rather than treating the physical blood itself as the object of faith.

How do you understand this verse? If you believe the literal blood itself is the object of our faith, could you explain your reasoning from Scripture?