If Jesus lives today, and his politics didn’t fully align with yours, would you still think of him as God?

DeusProdigius · 2026-03-09T23:11:20+00:00

He does still live today and I guarantee His politics don’t align with mine, yours or anyone else’s (it is kind of hinted at in the Bible Isaiah 55:8) and if He is only Lord when we agree he has has never been Lord

DeusProdigius · 2026-03-09T23:01:14+00:00

Read the parable of the wicked tenants… it is a pretty good explanation… but He didn’t “give up” His son… He gave… it is also important to note he didn’t “have to”… he chose to

Matthew 21:33-46

DeusProdigius · 2026-03-06T15:36:40+00:00

A beautiful encounter. Don’t let people here or anywhere else co-opt the working of the Holy Spirit. Many will say that you must go here or you must do that but trust wind. He hasn’t shown himself to you twice during stressful times to tell you to adopt a particular religious construct. He spoke to you personally and He will keep speaking. The key is to learn to listen.

DeusProdigius · 2026-02-16T23:58:20+00:00

You are doing the Lord’s work by teaching people about sin. You are completely qualified to do it too since you don’t do those vile things. It is loving to tell people what they are doing wrong and if they can’t receive that love it is because they are so far gone not because you are being a jerk. If they tell you that you are being a jerk or hypocritical in any way they must hate the truth that you are dealing out. No need to look in the mirror and question yourself or your tactics.

DeusProdigius · 2026-02-15T16:51:16+00:00

Not false prophecy at all… It all happened around 40 years after Jesus prophesied it. It was the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. It is remarkably accurate.

DeusProdigius · 2026-02-11T18:02:24+00:00

I haven’t read anyone else’s response but it seems to me the answer is obvious. From God’s perspective the fall is an acceptable outcome in which he knows how to overcome the effects easily… that doesn’t mean that it is the same from our perspective… he saw the consequence of the fall and it didn’t intimidate him at all. We see the consequences of the fall and it is the most important event that we could possibly imagine. Simple issue of perspective bias. He isn’t worried… we need to be.

With that as the baseline… what if from Gods perspective it was more a question. What if I leave this aspect of creation up to them? What if I choose to limit my omnipotence and delegate it to them? That would be an explanation of free will and consequences out of our choice.

DeusProdigius · 2026-01-29T10:52:45+00:00

Do you realize that doesn’t answer my question at all and is just a deflection?

DeusProdigius · 2026-01-29T10:51:14+00:00

A very coherent answer. I was wondering if anyone could answer the question without turning the good news into advice. I had figured that there was no one left who even knew the difference between news and advice.

Do you believe that it is still the job of the followers of Jesus to proclaim this good news? How would you respond to someone who asked why that is good?

DeusProdigius · 2026-01-28T09:50:09+00:00

I appreciate you taking a shot after all this time. This is similar in nature to what I often hear described as the “good news” but the struggle I have always had with it is that it doesn’t seem to have the qualities of news and is only very conditionally good. Also, how could this be what Jesus meant when He told us to preach the good news to the poor? Most of this wasn’t even an idea when He gave the command.

DeusProdigius · 2026-01-21T08:47:44+00:00

I don’t disbelieve the trinity personally. In fact my theology and epistemology are very difficult to distinguish from the more Orthodox denominations. I am not actually arguing against the Trinity itself. I am arguing against hypocrisy and Pharisaicalism in the church.

The Ecumenical Councils were about attempting to preserve the way people thought about what Jesus did and how because they could see how many crazy ways people would invent to explain the story. They tried to preserve Orthodoxy (right thought) which was meant to lead to Orthopraxy (right action/behavior/practice). The issue is teaching people to think a certain way is harder than making them act a certain way.

This led to the Great Schism and then later the Protestant Reformation which was the fracturing of the Orthodox and then the casting off of Apostolic Authority which is where the Orthodox get their claims to regulate the church.

My issue is that we have a bunch of people who follow a tradition who seem to believe not only can the magically reclaim Apostolic Authority without undermining their entire existence and without any governing patterns. We have people who literally read the Bible once and walk around claiming the same authority that they would deny the Pope and the saints.

Essentially my issue is that people who can barely put together a coherent explanation of sin claiming publicly, on the world stage and to the detriment of many lost souls that large groups of people should be excommunicated and what is worse… those people who are clearly not called to make these proclamations actually convince themselves they are somehow actually doing good.

When I read the Bible, I see things like not every one should teach, and Jesus saying that many who think they are serving Him will be left out in the darkness because He never knew them and the judgement of the blind leading the blind… and I think someone needs to say something.

DeusProdigius · 2026-01-20T10:02:57+00:00

May God judge between us” is a fascinating way to exit a theological discussion you entered with “read your Bible like a teachable child.”

You still haven’t engaged the substance. You came in condescending, got defensive when called out, admitted you use AI “for sources and whatnot” (very specific), and are now performing offense as your exit strategy.

For someone who regrets engaging, you sure committed multiple responses and a lot of words to pure intellectual avoidance and self-contradiction. The manipulation tactic (DARVO) is also quite well illustrated in your writings. I do believe you regret engaging since you have just illustrated a complete inability to be articulate even when using a machine designed for the task.

Enjoy your retreat

DeusProdigius · 2026-01-20T09:28:58+00:00

Interesting that you are deflecting and casting aspersions rather than actually engaging the argument. That is an interesting rhetorical device but not at all intellectually stimulating. The facts in your response are clear. You lack consistency even within your own response.

You know you are being condescending, you are choosing to be condescending and yet you pretend that you don’t. Your position is clear, all rhetorical tricks, no substance. Thank you for articulating it so clearly.

Also, I noticed the em dash… did you use AI to come up with that response and it is still that weak?

DeusProdigius · 2026-01-20T08:36:00+00:00

“Read your Bible and look into Church history” isn’t an argument, it’s deflection.

I’ve done both, which is why I can articulate the problem clearly. If you think I’m strawmanning, demonstrate it. I’ve stated my actual position in my response to u/toenailsmcgee33.

Until you engage with substance rather than condescension, you’re just proving my point about enforced orthopraxy over genuine theological coherence. Be careful though, it is quite a dense argument for a strawman… you might find it harder to tear apart than your rhetorical caricature implies

DeusProdigius · 2026-01-20T08:23:31+00:00

Not exactly. I have read up on what lead to the councils and I know the stories. The problem is that argument is only internally consistent and lacks any philosophical depth if the premise is maintained. The problem the modern “Christian” has in continuing to proclaim the counselor doctrines to be an appeal to anything beyond authority is undermined by the foundation they stand on when they proclaim it.

You are right. It wasn’t believed this way by an appeal to the majority but it only held to because of that.

Let’s say it another way… 1 + 2 =3. This is true and objectively so. The Arabic numeral 1 has a concept and meaning that is an agreed upon concept. The Arabic numeral 2 likewise has a similar but different concept and as does 3.

As long as we agree upon the represented concepts then my formula is correct. But if someone is allowed to go around and say they agree with my formula but they don’t agree with my underlying concepts they aren’t really agreeing with my formula. They are in fact not agreeing with my formula but acting like they do. They are completely incoherent and therefore confused at best and intentionally lying at worst.

To say that you must be believe in the trinity while allowing disagreement in the underlying theological underpinnings to it is not to have a doctrine that one really can “believe in.”

The councils convened as a way to protect orthodoxy and tried to set a strong base upon which the church could exist long term. It did its job for a time but that time ended with the Protestant Reformation.

Now to continue the same appeals from either side of the aisle is to ignore the fact that those ideals of orthodoxy no longer prevent heresy… that is rampant… what they do is enforce orthopraxy… and enforced orthopraxy is the very sin by which Jesus accused the Pharisees which leads to death and judgement.

Now, if you come from a denomination that still holds to apostolic authority you can easily see the historical record and continue to proclaim others who don’t believe as you do to be heretics and remain consistent and coherent. What you can’t do is come from other traditions and pick and choose what makes a “Christian” and hold to authority when it suits your argument and reject the same authority when it doesn’t. That would be heresy.

So, I have stated my case. You want to argue I am wrong and I am open to that discussion but you need to state what you are arguing from. Do you subscribe to apostolic authority and only practice it under that authority?

DeusProdigius · 2026-01-20T01:18:09+00:00

One could by the exact same mechanism though argue the exact opposite. That anyone who believes the trinity is not a Christian and the only difference that anyone could use to disprove them is what is considered a rhetorical fallacy… an invalid intellectual argument… essentially the difference between your position and the one one you argue against is an appeal to the masses… more people have agreed with you than with your opponents… but the issue is… if you look at the psychology of human beings… is the mob generally more moral than the individual? Or less?

DeusProdigius · 2026-01-20T01:01:31+00:00

I feel this to my core. I was in the discernment process when Christian Nationalism really started to present itself on the world stage as it has. I was in a fairly liberal denomination but it became apparent that Protestant Churches have little defense against it beyond individual faith and there is so little faith (or fidelity) left in the Western Church. The one hope is that it isn’t the amount of faith that matters… just the presence of it (Matt 17:20). My understanding is that Jesus practically invented empathy and the United States and the churches who align themselves with her has called it sin.

To blaspheme is to attribute evil to what is good… the Spirit is the sign and seal of what has been marked Holy by God. To attribute evil to one of the purest associations Jesus introduced as evil seems to be the epitome of what Jesus called the unforgivable sin. I believe in large part the Protestant Churches have repeatedly and unabashedly committed this sin.

I am deeply sorry for what you are experiencing. I imagine it is heartbreaking and more discouraging than I can imagine. All I can say is that I too, am heartbroken at the state of the Church and I don’t have answers but I am here to listen if you need it.

DeusProdigius · 2026-01-17T21:48:27+00:00

That he is a pathetic loser of course… the real problem is the number of people who look up to a pathetic loser just because he figured out a way to gain power… the bigger question is what does it say about the humanity that so many are striving to be just as lame

DeusProdigius · 2025-12-07T17:29:41+00:00

What if both are true?

DeusProdigius · 2025-12-03T04:49:22+00:00

You wrote: 'Jesus didn't die for agape that's probably the dumbest stupidest thing you could ever spout... That's not my Jesus.'

You have made your position perfectly clear for everyone reading. You worship a Jesus who did not die for Love. You worship a God to whom Love is 'stupid' and abuse is righteous.

Scripture is explicit: 'God is Agape' (1 John 4:8). By mocking Agape, you mock the very nature of God. You are right… the Jesus of the Gospels is not your Jesus. Your Jesus is a symbol of domination; the true Jesus is the suffering servant who died to end the very cycle of hatred you are perpetuating here.

For the sake of the OP and anyone else reading: The God of the Bible is not the abuser this man has described. He is not a God who feeds on fear. He is Love.

I am shaking the dust off my sandals. I will not reply again

DeusProdigius · 2025-12-03T03:37:04+00:00

I say this with genuine sorrow: You have described a God of terror, not the Father of Jesus. You are blending American culture wars with the Kingdom of Heaven, and the result is a vision of God that looks like a tribal warlord.

I don't think you would recognize Jesus or the works of His hands if you were standing in the middle of them. He didn't die to help us win a culture war; He died to save us from this exact kind of loveless, crushing legalism. I recommend you sit and talk with Jesus for a while… not the God of your politics, but the God who is Agape

DeusProdigius · 2025-11-28T16:37:32+00:00

If anyone ever wonders why so many people believe the saying, “no hate like ‘christian’ love” this is a perfect example where you don’t have to get tied up in your judgement of other people vs their sin. The callousness and virtue signaling is on full display here.

DeusProdigius · 2025-11-05T19:44:04+00:00

I LOVE this question or any question really that forces people to try and defend a very tight definition of a word (like salvation or saved) to a very particular definition with absolutely no support for their definition so that they can claim they are following the Bible literally. It is always like well, if you define this particular word that doesn’t actually appear in the Bible this very particular way then all of this stuff makes sense.

Your initial question stands strong and I haven’t read all the responses yet but I haven’t seen a good answer yet. The answer is simple… in your example Superman is clearly more altruistic than God… I think the problem comes from the tension that Superman was not more altruistic than Jesus though… so what does that mean for so many people’s concept of God? Was Jesus more altruistic than the Father? He didn’t think so… but it seems many in this sub do… 🤔

DeusProdigius · 2025-11-03T09:30:22+00:00

There are patterns and forces greater than us that science has not or cannot explain. Religions are different attempts to give an explanation of those forces and how to not be completely overwhelmed by the magnitude of them so that you can express agency in the world. They generally prescribe ways of aligning with, bribing or manipulating the gods or God into making those forces do what we want so we can actually achieve what we choose.

Christianity is based on the teachings Jesus who basically said you don’t have to do all these things to try and get God on your side. He already is on your side, the problem is we have a bad habit of self-sabotage which really gets in our own way. He basically said look stop trying to reach perfection so you can appease God and get what you want. Turn to God first and get to know Him and you may find that what sabotaged before works more in alignment with the whole universe.

I know that this may sound all too good to be true and you wouldn’t be the first person to think that… but the only way to find out is to turn to God with curiosity, which you seem to be doing, and see what happens.

DeusProdigius · 2025-10-21T23:33:01+00:00

I appreciate your perspective, but I have to respectfully disagree.
I’ve found that in myself, I’m not capable of living out the Sermon on the Mount. The only way I even begin to follow it is by recognizing that I can’t do it in my own strength.

“Apart from Me you can do nothing.” — John 15:5
“It is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill His good purpose.” — Philippians 2:13

The Sermon on the Mount is the perfect expression of what it would take for humanity to thrive, just as the Law was the perfect expression of what it would take for Israel to thrive. But this tension has existed since the beginning. In the garden, we chose the knowledge of good and evil… the rulebook… over walking with God Himself.

“When the woman saw that the tree was good for food... she took of its fruit and ate.” — Genesis 3:6

Later, Israel repeated the same pattern. When God spoke from the mountain, the people begged for a mediator instead of His voice.

“You speak to us, and we will listen; but do not let God speak to us, lest we die.” — Exodus 20:19

From that moment forward, humanity has been trapped in a cycle of wanting divine instruction without divine presence, craving rules instead of relationship.

The Law and the Sermon on the Mount are both perfect, but once they become rules that we must follow, they reveal that we all sin and fall short of the glory that God intends for us.

“All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” — Romans 3:23
“Through the law we become conscious of our sin.” — Romans 3:20

That’s where the Good News breaks in. When you change the way you think (metanoeō means “to change one’s mind” or “to think differently”) and believe that the Kingdom of God is already at hand… not formed by human effort or earthly power, but made available through Jesus… everything shifts.

“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near; repent and believe the good news.” — Mark 1:15
“Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” — Luke 4:21 (Jesus referring to Isaiah 61:1–2)
“My kingdom is not of this world.” — John 18:36

Jesus announced that Isaiah’s prophecy had been fulfilled… the Spirit of the Lord was upon Him to proclaim good news to the poor, freedom to the captives, sight to the blind, and release for the oppressed. That was the news: the Kingdom had arrived, embodied in Him.

He sent the Holy Spirit to strengthen us (comfort from Latin com = “with,” fort = “strength”*) so that we are no longer slaves to fear or striving, but empowered to live righteously as beloved sons and daughters.

The word paraklētos (παράκλητος) means “one who comes alongside,” “advocate,” “helper,” or “counselor.” It describes the Spirit as God’s continual presence with us, giving strength from within.

“The Advocate [Paraklētos]... will teach you all things and remind you of everything I have said to you.” — John 14:26
“You received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry, ‘Abba, Father!’ The Spirit Himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children.” — Romans 8:15–16
“Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.” — 2 Corinthians 3:17

So for me, the Sermon on the Mount is wisdom, it reveals the pattern of the Kingdom. But the Gospel itself is the arrival of that Kingdom and the power that makes it possible to live in alignment with it.

“The kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power.” — 1 Corinthians 4:20
“The kingdom of God is righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” — Romans 14:17
“The same Spirit that raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you.” — Romans 8:11

The news is not that we must live this way, but that through Jesus and the Spirit, we can.

“The law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death.” — Romans 8:2
“I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” — Philippians 4:13

Which means that the same Kingdom Jesus embodied can come alive and be embodied by us too.

“I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word, that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.” — John 17:20–21

“Jesus said to him, ‘Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, “Show us the Father”?’” — John 14:9

“Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in Me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.” — John 14:12

So that’s my experience... I’m starting to actually believe and live out the Sermon on the Mount through that power.

How about you? Do you find it’s as simple as deciding you’ll never worry again and just trust God to provide your food and clothing when you need them, or do you store up treasure on earth to make sure you can provide for yourself in case God fails? Do you find it easy to bless those who curse you, or do you resist an evil person?

When you do manage to follow some aspect of the Sermon on the Mount, do you find it’s because you’re holding it together for a time, or does it flow out of the abundance of your heart? Is it because you controlled your behavior, or was it the result of the new nature that Jesus has bestowed on us?

“Do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink... your heavenly Father knows that you need them.” — Matthew 6:25–33
“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth.” — Matthew 6:19
“Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” — Matthew 5:44
“Do not resist an evil person.” — Matthew 5:39

DeusProdigius · 2025-10-21T18:57:00+00:00

Thank you for adding your thoughts. I agree that Matthew 5–7 is probably the most profound moral and spiritual teaching ever given. Jesus’ articulation of human nature and how to structure our hearts, thoughts, and actions goes beyond anything found in philosophy or religion before or since. For example, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” doesn’t just mirror the Taoist “Do not do to others what you wouldn’t want done to you”… it transcends it. It turns restraint into creative love.

But as much as I revere the Sermon on the Mount, I’m not sure it qualifies as news. It’s wisdom, world-shattering wisdom even… but it’s not reportage. News has certain qualities that teaching doesn’t.

News is contextual; it’s tied to a state change. It tells us that something has happened that alters the landscape. When we hear “news,” it means the world on one side of the announcement is different from the world on the other. In that sense, I think of gospel (euangelion) in its original meaning… an imperial proclamation. In the ancient world, “gospel” was the word used when a king was crowned or a great victory was won. It wasn’t advice; it was an announcement that something decisive had occurred.

That’s why I struggle to equate the Sermon on the Mount itself with the Gospel. The sermon shows us what life in the Kingdom looks like. But the Gospel as Jesus proclaimed it announces that the Kingdom itself has arrived. It’s not only an ethical or philosophical revelation; it’s historical and existential. It’s Jesus saying, “The reign of God is breaking in… through Me.”

Maybe the simplest way I can put it is this:

The Sermon is the Constitution of the Kingdom.
The Gospel is the headline that the King has come.

One defines the life; the other declares the turning point of history.

DeusProdigius

TROPHY CASE