General religious discussion thread

[Akimikoisthecutest]

On 1/21/2026 at 9:53 PM, Frustration said:

What are your philosophies? I've personally always taken religion as the necessary answer: to why we live, why we want to be good people, for our desire to continue living.

I personally think it is just rewarding to be good people. Not because of any god, but just because you know that you're not being a horrible person putting others down. I think we live for experience, I don't really think there is a god up there, but I think if I did, my religion would be very similar to the Path from Mistborn

[Hmmm lies she/her]

22 hours ago, SpiritOfWrath said:

1. Hhhhmmm. Thats fallacy. The fact that humanity has the capacity to make simple choices, doesn't mean they are limited to simple choice. Computers are.

2. Cool!

3. I was just stating that it wasn't an order of good better best it was kinda just a way I liked to think of it.

4. ....wait I'm not sure what you're arguing. Yeah emotions are cool! They can be good, but they can be really bad too. It's a trade-off.

1. What is the difference between simple choice and... I'm not sure what you're comparing it too, but complex choice I guess? The way I see it, it's just input and output, like everything else.

4. What I'm saying is, if memory, rationality, and emotions are all marks of 'life', then there could exist higher processes that could be considered more alive, if emotion is more alive than rationality which is more alive than memory. We, presumably, wouldn't understand them, just like an emotionless being wouldn't understand emotion.

[Frustration]

On 1/25/2026 at 12:01 AM, Chaos said:

You are very welcome! I can definitely understand the appeal of looking at the vastness and joy and everything and thinking there must be some reason for it all. That's totally fair. I just think most things do not have metaphysical "meaning" attached. If you and your friend got in a car accident with a drunk driver, it's easy to ask, "Why me?" And people are searching for that deeper why. Whereas I'd just say, yeah, that person drove drunk and hit you. That's it.

I'm a bit busy this week (class is beginning Monday) so I may not respond nearly as much as you had, but I did want to comment on this one: 

  Reveal hidden contents

I do find the idea of a world without an eternity to be in essence, hopeless

This is so fascinating, because I hate the idea of an afterlife. Like, honestly, it does not give any comfort to me at all. I do want things to end. 

I think life's finiteness is what gives it meaning. We have a limited amount of time to make the world a better place. If this is some cosmic... testing ground before the real eternal life after, that honestly feels like some sadistic, unnecessary game.

An afterlife also provides perverse incentives for this life. It means people will be far more concerned with the supposed next life than actually trying to fix things and make the planet better. Who cares about staving off the end of the world if you'll see them all again in a perfect place later? It's alarming that there are more than a few believers who would be excited about the end times for this reason.

I guess I've struggled with suicide enough that I find eternity to be a true punishment, regardless of how "good" it's supposed to be. I'm doing good now, and certainly don't intend to pass anytime soon, but no thanks, afterlife. I've watched too many scifi or fantasy stories about immortals and it's always bad. 

This would be different if there was an eventual option to cease existing, however. I'd likely change my mind and exist for a few hundred thousand years or whatever. But a trillion? Quadrillion years? Ooof. The calculus teacher in me is like, "Infinity would be a very, very long time!"

But then, I have zero evidence of an afterlife that can be demonstrated, so I do not worry about it in the slightest.

I find this so interesting because I've actually had a lot of the same thoughts, right down to at some points in my life wanting a way out from an afterlife.

I also honestly can't say what changed, other than my depression stabilizing that would change it. I just kind of got up one day and decided that living forever sounded awesome.

I suppose it might have something to do with the doctrine of eternal families and going "Yeah, I could live forever if I'm with you." But even then I never had a conscious decision point, so I honestly can't say.

But I understand entirely if that doesn't sound appealing to you as I've had the same exact idea in the past.

On 1/25/2026 at 12:01 AM, Chaos said:

(If God knows everything, he knows who will join him or not. So he will know who goes wherever in the afterlife. Why do we have this awful part? Why create people who don't go to Heaven? I realize the LDS conception of Heaven is not the same as the standard Christian one but the details escape me, but regardless, I don't really see why God would do... any of this. So he's just... Sending people to hell just because. If Heaven is perfect and without sin, then that kind of takes the wind out of the idea that there even has to be a world with sin at all. And if you're in Heaven and it's perfect and sinless, does that mean free will is gone? Sounds creepy.)

 That honestly encapsulates a lot of my thoughts on traditional Christian concepts, especially predestination.

I'd say our understanding of heaven doesn't change that too much, it's more our doctrine on the pre-existence.

I'll skip the scriptural explanation unless someone wants to ask for it, but the TLDR is that we as humans are eternal, and that there was no beginning to our creation. God then offered us the ability to progress and become like him, which was our whole mortal life, heaven and hell and all of that.

God didn't create us to be fallible; we were that way to start with, and he gave us the opportunity to be perfect.

[Immortal Platypus]

2 hours ago, Frustration said:

I'd say our understanding of heaven doesn't change that too much, it's more our doctrine on the pre-existence.

 

I'd say there are some pretty major and important differences, like the fact that the telestial kingdom largely replaces what most religions consider hell. To go to outer darkness (our seeming equivalent to traditional hell) you basically need to know God, feel the Spirit testify to you of him, and willingly reject him. These people are very rare. (I'm assuming you know this, but there are plenty of people that wouldn't.) The general "bad people" (ie, murderers, thieves, etc.) don't get sent all the way to outer darkness, they go to the telestial kingdom*. I will say that our creation doctrine (creation ex materia) makes the creation of imperfect people make a lot more sense. It's possible I'm wrong on some of this, or that it doesn't seem important to the conversation, but I think all of this is accurate. 

*There is a period of time where they suffer in basically a traditional hell, but it's not forever. 

[Frustration]

48 minutes ago, Immortal Platypus said:

I'd say there are some pretty major and important differences, like the fact that the telestial kingdom largely replaces what most religions consider hell. To go to outer darkness (our seeming equivalent to traditional hell) you basically need to know God, feel the Spirit testify to you of him, and willingly reject him. These people are very rare. (I'm assuming you know this, but there are plenty of people that wouldn't.) The general "bad people" (ie, murderers, thieves, etc.) don't get sent all the way to outer darkness, they go to the telestial kingdom*. I will say that our creation doctrine (creation ex materia) makes the creation of imperfect people make a lot more sense. It's possible I'm wrong on some of this, or that it doesn't seem important to the conversation, but I think all of this is accurate. 

*There is a period of time where they suffer in basically a traditional hell, but it's not forever. 

It is important don't get me wrong, but in relation to Chaos's question: Why sin exists and why a mortal probation is necessary and we can't simply be created as perfect beings inhabiting heaven? It doesn't really change too much.

[Immortal Platypus]

9 minutes ago, Frustration said:

It is important don't get me wrong, but in relation to Chaos's question: Why sin exists and why a mortal probation is necessary and we can't simply be created as perfect beings inhabiting heaven? It doesn't really change too much.

ah, yes. I was more answering the part where he said "he's just... Sending people to hell just because" which is partially answered by your answer, but I feel mine provides important context. I feel yours answers his questions well, I just wanted to add a little on that topic specifically. 

 

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

4 hours ago, Frustration said:

God didn't create us to be fallible; we were that way to start with, and he gave us the opportunity to be perfect.

What is this perfection business supposed to be like?

[Frustration]

17 minutes ago, ParaTulip said:

What is this perfection business supposed to be like?

Ah, and now we get to the heart of the issue: Why does God care about us?

Well, we believe that the scriptures speaking of man as the offspring of God, and receiving all that He has are to be taken literally. That we through our obedience may become a god in our own right.

EDIT: for those curious the Church has an essay on the topic, and I am of course open to talking more about it.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/becoming-like-god?lang=eng

Edited January 26 by Frustration

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

1 hour ago, Frustration said:

Ah, and now we get to the heart of the issue: Why does God care about us?

Well, we believe that the scriptures speaking of man as the offspring of God, and receiving all that He has are to be taken literally. That we through our obedience may become a god in our own right.

EDIT: for those curious the Church has an essay on the topic, and I am of course open to talking more about it.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics-essays/becoming-like-god?lang=eng

Okay, so I have tried to read that, and I think it's answering a different question than I was asking?

I do understand that there's a lot of discourses to have about the question of "Does Scripture mean this", but I am largely willing to simply accept the proposition "God wants to elevate us to be like unto itself".

My question is more: What does it entail to be made so? I see hints of this, God is presented as more one who arranges the conditions of life than brings about all things from nothing. But I would assume there's something more to becoming like God than simply being empowered to engage in terraforming.

Saying it is a great joy does not cover it for me. I am much like Friedrich Nietzsche in that I get a lot out of hiking. I love the tiredness and exhaustion of it, pushing my body to carry itself through cold and up hills and so on. This is different from running, which I also did enjoy, because it cannot be intensified in cadence. Either the terrain must get steeper or I must do it for longer duration. Were I given more power by which to do this, it would simply delay my joyous state of exhaustion.

How then, could I ever find joy in being like an infinite God? Would I not have to be changed as a person?

This is my real question put short: What are the boundaries on the nature of such an exalted one?

[Frustration]

4 minutes ago, ParaTulip said:

Okay, so I have tried to read that, and I think it's answering a different question than I was asking?

I do understand that there's a lot of discourses to have about the question of "Does Scripture mean this", but I am largely willing to simply accept the proposition "God wants to elevate us to be like unto itself".

My question is more: What does it entail to be made so? I see hints of this, God is presented as more one who arranges the conditions of life than brings about all things from nothing. But I would assume there's something more to becoming like God than simply being empowered to engage in terraforming.

Saying it is a great joy does not cover it for me. I am much like Friedrich Nietzsche in that I get a lot out of hiking. I love the tiredness and exhaustion of it, pushing my body to carry itself through cold and up hills and so on. This is different from running, which I also did enjoy, because it cannot be intensified in cadence. Either the terrain must get steeper or I must do it for longer duration. Were I given more power by which to do this, it would simply delay my joyous state of exhaustion.

How then, could I ever find joy in being like an infinite God? Would I not have to be changed as a person?

This is my real question put short: What are the boundaries on the nature of such an exalted one?

Well you're asking a question that philosophers and theologians have spent all of recorded history debating.

I'll be frank, I've asked many of the same questions, and I have no answer. I don't know.

[Oranjejuicemonki He/Him]

8 minutes ago, ParaTulip said:

How then, could I ever find joy in being like an infinite God? Would I not have to be changed as a person?

I think that's the reason we're here on this earth is so that we can learn and grow. Just like in that hiking example you gave, I agree that you can't have joy without struggle. I think we will have joy in the next life because of all of the struggles in this life that we got through, but I don't know exactly how that works because I do agree it seems a little strange to think about. 

[Keke They/he]

On 1/25/2026 at 12:01 AM, Chaos said:

 

(If God knows everything, he knows who will join him or not. So he will know who goes wherever in the afterlife. Why do we have this awful part? Why create people who don't go to Heaven? I realize the LDS conception of Heaven is not the same as the standard Christian one but the details escape me, but regardless, I don't really see why God would do... any of this. So he's just... Sending people to hell just because. If Heaven is perfect and without sin, then that kind of takes the wind out of the idea that there even has to be a world with sin at all. And if you're in Heaven and it's perfect and sinless, does that mean free will is gone? Sounds creepy.)

 

Okay so i saw this and actually in class on Sunday we talked about this and so now im gonna blab.

what i find fascinating is in the lds faith there isnt hell. Hell doesnt exist and hence no one can go there. They (im not gonna say we cause idek if i consider myself lds rn) but they belive we all chose in heaven before we came here to come and live and so i geuss subconsciously we know we are gona do good? Either way if you die and your not baptized they do baptisms for the dead where when your in the waiting room or whatever and you can choose to accept it. But we did get into a point of WHY 

thats a question i asked a lot is why and i think i cracked the code. 

If we think about it from a writers perspective (bear with me) we hurt our characters and put em through hell BUT we know in the end these events will help them in the future. The days I spent hurting are then useful cause i can personally relate to those who come to me needing help[ then i can help[ them. 

So if we think of whatever higher deity as out author, then they hurt as much as we do seeing us suffer but know we need it for later in life. CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT. 

But also i have experiences i find hard to explain without the presence of someone higher. Though i would love to know how someone explained them without a supernatural/religous view. I add supernatural cause i am a 100 percent believer of ghosts spirits and such. Objectively speaking though stuff like vamps/wendigos or shifters dont exist. 

[Kansas Stormcursed he/him]

I've considered this a bit lately and come up with a bit of clarification of my views, which I'd be curious what other people's thoughts are. I don't necessarily deny the existence of a God; there may be one, there may not. I just decided I don't believe in one or have faith in one, the same way I would lose faith in a person. I cannot reconcile the descriptions of God with what He would allow to happen. Same as my policy on people: I don't care your reasons, we're done if you hurt somebody I love. That said, I also don't believe a God exists, as a semi-related issue; however, this I see as a difference of perspective. Since God's existence can neither be proven or disproven, he exists to those who believe in Him and doesn't to others, like me. Almost going back to Descartes and his conclusions of "I think, therefore I am," that only affect the self; I have no way of determining if others are actually real or just generated by my mind. In the same way, God is real. If someone believes in Him. He also isn't real. If someone doesn't believe that he exists. (I really hope that logic made sense).

[Qianweilian He/him]

50 minutes ago, Keke said:

what i find fascinating is in the lds faith there isnt hell. Hell doesnt exist and hence no one can go there.

Afaik, there is an “outer darkness” that is equivalent to a traditional hell, but in order to arrive there, you must have a full knowledge of the gospel and then reject it. Not requirements most people meet, except for the sons of perdition.

[Keke They/he]

7 minutes ago, Qianweilian said:

Afaik, there is an “outer darkness” that is equivalent to a traditional hell, but in order to arrive there, you must have a full knowledge of the gospel and then reject it. Not requirements most people meet, except for the sons of perdition.

Huh fascinating, i never heard of that. 

[Pathfinder]

Just dropped in for a few thoughts and then I shall fly away. I am stating from the perspective of the atheist, so this is not intended to debate on the veracity of religion nor incite such a debate.  

Regarding the idea of objective morality and how does one “enforce” or “convince” others to follow it. From the perspective of an atheist, religion has the same burden of proof. As there is no evidence to prove gods existence, any individuals from any religion are the ones espousing the morality and claiming it is objective. Not their deity. Therefore how does that individual “enforce” or “convince” others to follow their version of objective morality. Saying god said so is not sufficient, as the atheist does not have convincing evidence god exists, and thereby has no cause to be convinced based on such deity.

So how does this atheist (myself in particular as atheism is not a monolith and there are many systems of morality) structure their objective morality and “convince” others? By starting with there is not an objective morality, but we can examine whether something is moral objectively. I lean towards Matt Dillahunty. Basically we take chess as an example. Chess is a game with arbitrary rules that we all agree on. Once the rules are agreed upon, we can then objectively decide whether certain moves are objectively better or worse in a given circumstance. So we can as a society determine a goal. We can then measure our actions against the goal. The goal is subjective, while the measured actions are objective. This leaves room for morality to evolve, change and grow with society’s progression. 

@Frustration To get a better understanding of this, I suggest looking into Matt Dillahunty. If you would like to learn more about how nihilism can actually be a very positive outlook, please look into Forrest Valkai. I myself am not a nihilist, but there are a few videos of Forrest Valkai explaining that view very well. 

[Qianweilian He/him]

18 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

Saying god said so is not sufficient, as the atheist does not have convincing evidence god exists, and thereby has no cause to be convinced based on such deity.

That actually is often the way to “convince” someone of the validity of your morality. The essence of religion is faith, it lies in believing that God(or gods, etc.) is real. And conversion most often consists of convincing the convert that both: God is real, and the converters (don’t have a great universal term for this) are his representatives.

[Pathfinder]

2 minutes ago, Qianweilian said:

That actually is often the way to “convince” someone of the validity of your morality. The essence of religion is faith, it lies in believing that God(or gods, etc.) is real. And conversion most often consists of convincing the convert that both: God is real, and the converters (don’t have a great universal term for this) are his representatives.

The reason I brought this up, is because it was mentioned in this thread that how does an atheist convince others to follow their morality. Basically an argument from authority. How does the atheist claim that what they think “ought” to be done. Religion’s typical response is, there is an all powerful, all knowing, all good entity that is morality and defines morality. That entity says this thing or that thing is or is not moral. There is your objective morality. But from the perspective of the individual trying to be convinced, they have no reason to believe one religion’s deity over any other religion’s deity except what the person who is trying to convince them says. Basically the individual espousing the religion has no greater “authority” to draw on, than any atheist. They run into the exact same issue. Why do you get to tell me what to do? Referencing someone else’s authority that you cannot in any tangible way enforce (direct from the horses mouth as it were) returns the buck right back to the person saying it. 

Now I started my original post saying I am not debating any religions veracity. I am an atheist. I do not believe any such deity exists. My reason is I believe there is no convincing evidence for god. So from the perspective of an atheist, who has no cause to believe any claims the individual espousing the religion is true, has no reason to give the religious individual’s morality any more credence than anyone else’s. And further has no greater reason to listen to or follow it than anyone else’s.

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

On 1/27/2026 at 11:40 AM, Kansas Stormcursed said:

Almost going back to Descartes and his conclusions of "I think, therefore I am," that only affect the self; I have no way of determining if others are actually real or just generated by my mind.

This is funky to me, since when I think of religion and Descartes, I have two paths of thought that return to me at once. In one, I am thinking of Georges Berkley and his assertion that all experience is mental and the seeming continuity of experiences is thanks to what we take for objective reality actually being the interior of the mind of God. If it was just in the mind of Georges Berkley, he would be able to kick through rocks a lot better, and that would have let him win an argument. The other path is thinking of how much Descartes' dualism or any form of pure idealism is deeply wrong.

As I have said in the thread "Do you believe in God?", I do think that a God in the form of Spinoza's God as all extant matter, energy, observed and unobserved, everywhere, all at once, is hard to refute. Since our material bodies will always be part of the universe's materiality, there is a sense in which all who die are destined to become one with this God without exception. 

[Chaos he/him]

On 1/26/2026 at 8:20 AM, Frustration said:

I find this so interesting because I've actually had a lot of the same thoughts, right down to at some points in my life wanting a way out from an afterlife.

I also honestly can't say what changed, other than my depression stabilizing that would change it. I just kind of got up one day and decided that living forever sounded awesome.

I suppose it might have something to do with the doctrine of eternal families and going "Yeah, I could live forever if I'm with you." But even then I never had a conscious decision point, so I honestly can't say.

But I understand entirely if that doesn't sound appealing to you as I've had the same exact idea in the past.

Hey, thanks for sharing. I'm truly glad your depression is stabilized especially. 

On 1/26/2026 at 8:20 AM, Frustration said:

 That honestly encapsulates a lot of my thoughts on traditional Christian concepts, especially predestination.

I'd say our understanding of heaven doesn't change that too much, it's more our doctrine on the pre-existence.

I'll skip the scriptural explanation unless someone wants to ask for it, but the TLDR is that we as humans are eternal, and that there was no beginning to our creation. God then offered us the ability to progress and become like him, which was our whole mortal life, heaven and hell and all of that.

God didn't create us to be fallible; we were that way to start with, and he gave us the opportunity to be perfect.

There are certainly some theological things that I do prefer and feel more rational in the LDS Church than traditional Christianity. 

However, my experience dating an LDS girl did take me solidly from agnostic to "I am pretty confident that God does not exist". So... some tradeoffs there. Hard for me to treat the theology abstractly from many other... pieces of baggage.

It's also a bit difficult to me because a lot of people seem to be very convinced on how the afterlife works, and there seems to be very little agreement on a broad scale on it, which frankly I think if divine revelation was a good way to get actual truth, this would... be more consistent.

On 1/27/2026 at 8:15 AM, Keke said:

If we think about it from a writers perspective (bear with me) we hurt our characters and put em through hell BUT we know in the end these events will help them in the future. The days I spent hurting are then useful cause i can personally relate to those who come to me needing help[ then i can help[ them. 

So if we think of whatever higher deity as out author, then they hurt as much as we do seeing us suffer but know we need it for later in life. CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT. 

I get this argument from the perspective of human things somewhat. It still does feel like a bit of a cruel joke given how many children starve to death with no agency or ability to change that fact, or any number of bits of human suffering that just seem... awful. 

But separate from the afterlife and things, there does exist suffering that is very much not for character development. For hundreds of millions of years, animals have been brutally killed in a fairly gruesome cycle. Even if animals aren't conscious, per se, I don't know, I think we can agree that when animals get hurt, they tend to not like it. Seems like it's not a fun experience. This has happened for millions of years before anything like humanity existed. 

Look into some of the horrific mass extinctions, like the Great Dying. It is absolutely insanely brutal. So many species on land and the ocean died. Literal hell on Earth type stuff, with surface temperatures of the ocean at the equator at 104 degrees Fahrenheit. This level of callous indifference doesn't really make sense to me from an all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God, particularly when humans do not exist, it cannot be from any "fallen world" caused by human sin. (And there are lots of horrific mass extinctions, too!) 

It's just such a hard pill for me to swallow that a God made and designed all this, and this is the best possible plan. 

Spoiler for um... horrifying lifeforms I guess?

Spoiler

Do we really need a parasite that eats human eyeballs? God supposedly designed that? The world would just be better if such an awful creature did not exist, particularly if the purpose of the world is for us.

None of this is surprising to me in an atheistic perspective, however, that this kind of indiscrimate pain and suffering would exist.

There could be some divine plan that makes it worthwhile, but that takes far more faith for me to stomach. It would make much more sense, if God is real, that creatures did just pop into existence at Creation, and we didn't have millions and millions of entire dead species to generate what we have now. 

There are, of course, many many religious people who can reconcile the theory of evolution with their faith, and that's great. At least to me, this isn't the world I would expect from this God character--at least, an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent one.

 

On 1/27/2026 at 8:15 AM, Keke said:

But also i have experiences i find hard to explain without the presence of someone higher. Though i would love to know how someone explained them without a supernatural/religous view. I add supernatural cause i am a 100 percent believer of ghosts spirits and such. Objectively speaking though stuff like vamps/wendigos or shifters dont exist. 

It is not my intent to deconvert people (and indeed, that is very much against the spirit of this thread), but you may find it interesting to look up Alyssa Grenfell, who was incredibly devout, could swear she had such experiences... and now she doesn't think she was feeling God at all. Your experiences could be very different from hers, of course.

I've never had a spiritual experience or feeling ever, and I know earlier in the thread I asked what that's like, and I never really got an answer that makes sense to me, so I'm not a good source to discuss what spiritual experiences mean. They just sound like the category of feelings to me. 

Ghosts and spirits would be cool, and I am fully ready to accept them when that's the best explanation. I would love for magic and such to be real! 

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

On 1/27/2026 at 11:15 AM, Keke said:

But also i have experiences i find hard to explain without the presence of someone higher. Though i would love to know how someone explained them without a supernatural/religous view. I add supernatural cause i am a 100 percent believer of ghosts spirits and such.

Could you describe these experiences? My own sense of the mystical only seems to get set off by ceremonies like tarot reading (and then only some of the time) and maybe a light sense of such in important religious ceremonies. Specifically, I recall that sense being aroused when undergoing baptism at an older age in the Baptist or Anabaptist tradition of an informed right, but to be honest it was a weaker sensation than the memorable encounters with tarot.

Are you saying your sense of a ghost is a visual or auditory sensation, as opposed to a more general sense of mystical importance or something? My reading into the mystical experiences of modern Christians only brought up the cultivation of an awareness of the sense of the mystical and an attendance to its accompanying events/environments.

[Keke They/he]

44 minutes ago, Chaos said:

Hey, thanks for sharing. I'm truly glad your depression is stabilized especially. 

There are certainly some theological things that I do prefer and feel more rational in the LDS Church than traditional Christianity. 

However, my experience dating an LDS girl did take me solidly from agnostic to "I am pretty confident that God does not exist". So... some tradeoffs there. Hard for me to treat the theology abstractly from many other... pieces of baggage.

It's also a bit difficult to me because a lot of people seem to be very convinced on how the afterlife works, and there seems to be very little agreement on a broad scale on it, which frankly I think if divine revelation was a good way to get actual truth, this would... be more consistent.

I get this argument from the perspective of human things somewhat. It still does feel like a bit of a cruel joke given how many children starve to death with no agency or ability to change that fact, or any number of bits of human suffering that just seem... awful. 

But separate from the afterlife and things, there does exist suffering that is very much not for character development. For hundreds of millions of years, animals have been brutally killed in a fairly gruesome cycle. Even if animals aren't conscious, per se, I don't know, I think we can agree that when animals get hurt, they tend to not like it. Seems like it's not a fun experience. This has happened for millions of years before anything like humanity existed. 

Look into some of the horrific mass extinctions, like the Great Dying. It is absolutely insanely brutal. So many species on land and the ocean died. Literal hell on Earth type stuff, with surface temperatures of the ocean at the equator at 104 degrees Fahrenheit. This level of callous indifference doesn't really make sense to me from an all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful God, particularly when humans do not exist, it cannot be from any "fallen world" caused by human sin. (And there are lots of horrific mass extinctions, too!) 

It's just such a hard pill for me to swallow that a God made and designed all this, and this is the best possible plan. 

Spoiler for um... horrifying lifeforms I guess?

  Reveal hidden contents

Do we really need a parasite that eats human eyeballs? God supposedly designed that? The world would just be better if such an awful creature did not exist, particularly if the purpose of the world is for us.

None of this is surprising to me in an atheistic perspective, however, that this kind of indiscrimate pain and suffering would exist.

There could be some divine plan that makes it worthwhile, but that takes far more faith for me to stomach. It would make much more sense, if God is real, that creatures did just pop into existence at Creation, and we didn't have millions and millions of entire dead species to generate what we have now. 

There are, of course, many many religious people who can reconcile the theory of evolution with their faith, and that's great. At least to me, this isn't the world I would expect from this God character--at least, an omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent one.

 

It is not my intent to deconvert people (and indeed, that is very much against the spirit of this thread), but you may find it interesting to look up Alyssa Grenfell, who was incredibly devout, could swear she had such experiences... and now she doesn't think she was feeling God at all. Your experiences could be very different from hers, of course.

I've never had a spiritual experience or feeling ever, and I know earlier in the thread I asked what that's like, and I never really got an answer that makes sense to me, so I'm not a good source to discuss what spiritual experiences mean. They just sound like the category of feelings to me. 

Ghosts and spirits would be cool, and I am fully ready to accept them when that's the best explanation. I would love for magic and such to be real! 

That's one thing that causes alot of my grappling in faith. Between that snd the logistics of all I cant fathom how it all works. Especially when my parents got divorced. Church always taught that family was the most important. 

So I think alot of religion is just based kn your ability to believe in a higher power. And the circumstances of your life. 

Ive gotten to my point where I think and know someone or something exists, but I dont really care. If a god exists then hooray. If not that sucks. Im gonna live my life to my fullest and if god wants his kids to be happy then he will let me live. 

24 minutes ago, ParaTulip said:

Could you describe these experiences? My own sense of the mystical only seems to get set off by ceremonies like tarot reading (and then only some of the time) and maybe a light sense of such in important religious ceremonies. Specifically, I recall that sense being aroused when undergoing baptism at an older age in the Baptist or Anabaptist tradition of an informed right, but to be honest it was a weaker sensation than the memorable encounters with tarot.

Are you saying your sense of a ghost is a visual or auditory sensation, as opposed to a more general sense of mystical importance or something? My reading into the mystical experiences of modern Christians only brought up the cultivation of an awareness of the sense of the mystical and an attendance to its accompanying events/environments.

Well there's a few.

One time at a friend's party, this friend is very spiritual in the supernatural sense. Like ghosts and demons. And wr were hanging out outside and istg I saw a man running down the street. I played it off as my mind tricking me. I saw him two other times and when I described it tk my friend they confirmed it was the same one that followed them. It never came near their house till that night. And I felt a dark feeling till the end of the night. 

Another one is these repetitive shadow figures that I felt frequently. Its strange to describe. Like I cant SEE them but I can see them? 

[ParaTulip fae/faer (declines as she/her)]

1 hour ago, Keke said:

Another one is these repetitive shadow figures that I felt frequently. Its strange to describe. Like I cant SEE them but I can see them? 

Do you frequently see these around when you are waking up? I have had experiences with sleep paralysis and the infamous "Sleep paralysis demon" sensation; both times I have experienced this I had dreamt just before waking of my mother coming to wake me as she did when I was young, and both times the incongruity of such a thought with her death being some years ago mixed with my half-awake mind to bring me to a state of confused terror at the thought of this impossible dark figure looming over me while I could hardly move.

Oh, and since I have your time, if you had that same experience and circumstances come to you (no offense to your mother), what would you make of them?

[Frustration]

2 hours ago, Chaos said:

Hey, thanks for sharing. I'm truly glad your depression is stabilized especially. 

There are certainly some theological things that I do prefer and feel more rational in the LDS Church than traditional Christianity. 

However, my experience dating an LDS girl did take me solidly from agnostic to "I am pretty confident that God does not exist". So... some tradeoffs there. Hard for me to treat the theology abstractly from many other... pieces of baggage.

Well thank you.

No that's honestly fair, and I'm sorry that your contact with the Church had such a rocky start.

[Keke They/he]

37 minutes ago, ParaTulip said:

Do you frequently see these around when you are waking up? I have had experiences with sleep paralysis and the infamous "Sleep paralysis demon" sensation; both times I have experienced this I had dreamt just before waking of my mother coming to wake me as she did when I was young, and both times the incongruity of such a thought with her death being some years ago mixed with my half-awake mind to bring me to a state of confused terror at the thought of this impossible dark figure looming over me while I could hardly move.

Oh, and since I have your time, if you had that same experience and circumstances come to you (no offense to your mother), what would you make of them?

I dont think I have actually. My house at least from what I was told by my dad. After the friends house thing I talked to him and he told me not to worry cause they couldn't get inside our house cause he had the priesthood and it was sacred or smthng. So Amy events all happen outside. 

Id take it as kinda maybe a medium thing? Im not super knowledgeable of this stuff. I kinda just roll with it ya know.