Nostr Web Client

Because all world religions fundamentally contradict not only each other but more importantly physics which is self evidently the language by which God imposes limits on us. If you seek God you’re more likely to catch glimpses beyond the edges of known science than you are to find him in heavily censored literature handed down through generations of fallible humans. I don’t think it’s possible for humans to hold at once even the rules of physics, much less the heart of God (his why).

Azz 5mo ago 💬 2

God is infinite and we’ll never grasp Him entirely. But that doesn’t mean we can’t know anything about Him. Christianity rests on the claim that God chose to reveal Himself, not through speculation, but through specific events, words, and a person. Revelation is partial, not because it’s censored, but because we are finite.

As for contradictions between religions, that’s precisely why not all can be true. But it doesn’t follow that none are. The presence of counterfeits doesn’t prove there’s no real thing, just that we need a way to measure truth beyond human projection.

To call God’s word “heavily censored” assumes it was entirely man made and manipulated. But if revelation began with God, then the question isn’t whether humans shaped it, it’s whether truth can survive human hands. The Christian claim is that it can, and has.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

TallBrian 5mo ago 💬 1

I respect the heck out of this position but ultimately It’s the last paragraph that I disagree with. I’ve tried to be Christian, but I can’t see around it.

OgFOMK ArTS 5mo ago

There are plenty of people who try to be Christian in hell.

Instead just get down on your knees and pray, read the Bible, understand the sin sacrifice and why Jesus was the last sin sacrifice. Jesus is alive and well and is here now in this conversation.

Azz 5mo ago 💬 2

I appreciate your honesty. You are raising a real tension, how can we trust something passed through human hands without assuming it has been distorted beyond use?

But this touches a deeper point, one that challenges rationalism itself. If you fully commit to the idea that nothing is trustworthy unless it can be logically deduced or empirically verified, then you also have to question your belief in the past, the existence of other minds, and even the reliability of your own perception.

You cannot prove any of these things through pure reason, yet no one lives as if they are unknowable. We trust them because we believe our cognitive faculties are designed to grasp reality, even if imperfectly. That is why thinkers like Alvin Plantinga argue that belief in God can be properly basic, rational, warranted, and grounded in experience, much like our trust in memory or our perception of an external world.

Christianity does not reject reason. It simply refuses to confine truth to what human reason can contain. If God is real, infinite, and personal, then revelation, not deduction, would be the most fitting way for Him to be known. And the question is not whether humans are fallible, they are, but whether God is powerful enough to ensure that what He most wants us to know is preserved.

So the Christian claim is not that we figured God out, but that He made Himself known and ensured that knowledge could endure through flawed people. That is not naive. It is coherent, if you accept that reason has limits.

We all live by faith in something. The real question is whether your framework can support the weight of the trust you already place, in your thoughts, your memory, and your relationships. If those are not irrational, then perhaps faith in a revealing God is not either.

GJM 2mo ago

TBH it comes across like you don’t understand what the implications of having a “saving faith” are (unless you have bought into predestination). It also reads like an AI wrote this (apologies and props if original).

Azz 2mo ago

What do you mean, the implications of having a saving faith?

I don't see how this is about predestination. The argument I am trying to articulate comes from the book warranted Christian Belief. The argument is basically if our minds are the product of survival of the fittest there is no reason to believe they can grasp truth, but if we are God's creatures it is reasonable to think he made our minds to grasp truth.

I wrote the reply and used AI to format it clearly.