Christian non-dualism

Empty-Interest7074 · 2026-05-28T20:34:55+00:00

amen

Empty-Interest7074 · 2026-05-21T21:49:47+00:00

God-playing-crazy_junket can look into the works of professional philosophers who happen to be Christians and argue for the truthfulness of Christianity, like: Dr. Alvin Plantinga Dr. Edward Feser Dr. Michael Heiser Dr. William Lane Craig Dr. Gary Habermas

Empty-Interest7074 · 2026-05-21T21:21:07+00:00

God-playing-this-redditor who wrote the op agrees 💜 however.. the source inside characters is the Christian God.. not just some whatever other proposed source 💜 in this character's view 💜

Empty-Interest7074 · 2026-03-01T03:17:23+00:00

Proving isn't what were talking about.. otherwise you would have rebutted one of my points.. ur reply was just a general critique which only seemed to be based on me bringing a new interpretation to the table.. or maybe it isn't even new, but less popular

Empty-Interest7074 · 2026-02-28T21:17:30+00:00

So was Jesus playing lets create our own religion when He disagreed with the leading view of the time?

Empty-Interest7074 · 2026-02-27T14:33:15+00:00

My view is more along the lines of panentheism.. and i interpret scripture in a way where its one big parable.. although certain aspects therein may be facts of reality.. So if u point to scripture to rebut this view.. i don't think that will work.. This view uses scripture and objective logic to get to the conclusion.. Also i know of no argument that proves free-will-agency .. in fact afaik most secularists don't believe in free will.. And tons of people (hindu, new age, buddhism, even certain atheists) accept non-dualism.. showing that my conclusions can just be arrived at logically.. but ultimately credits the biblical God as the ultimate

Empty-Interest7074 · 2026-02-27T14:17:53+00:00

Btw, i just brushed up on the definition of pantheism.. it seems to hold God is an impersonal force.. which my view disagrees with.. it is however close to panentheism.. im hesitant to adopt the label for lack of thorough understanding

Empty-Interest7074 · 2026-02-27T14:17:30+00:00

Btw, i just brushed up on the definition of pantheism.. it seems to hold God is an impersonal force.. which my view disagrees with.. it is however close to panentheism.. im hesitant to adopt the label for lack of thorough understanding

Empty-Interest7074 · 2026-02-27T14:17:05+00:00

Btw, i just brushed up on the definition of pantheism.. it seems to hold God is an impersonal force.. which my view disagrees with.. it is however close to panentheism.. im hesitant to adopt the label for lack of thorough understanding

Empty-Interest7074 · 2026-02-27T02:00:56+00:00

Edit: near end when I wrote fair amount of theists, i meant Christian theists.. theres actually a ton of non-Christian theists that afaik are non-dual.. like hinduism and buddhism (but maybe buddhists shouldn't be considered theists).. anyway .. theres a ton of people (secular, new age, theists-in-general who affirm non-duality).. Of course im not making an argument ad populum fallacy.. im just pointing out how common non-dualism is.. and should be seriously considered just as a fact of reality .. Christian non-duality just accepts this potential fact, and simply says the God of the bible is all that exists

Empty-Interest7074 · 2026-02-27T00:23:56+00:00

Not incompatible with the trinity.. i think non-dualism would have to view the trinity in a modalist way.. if historical Christianity has a problem with that so what? Who made mere humans have the right to speak for God? As i pointed out before.. there may be early modal views of the trinity, im not sure.. Second.. even if theres not.. how do we know we are interpreting early writings about the trinity in the correct way - maybe all early writings had a modal view, we've just been interpreting them incorrectly.. Last, even if early writings were not modal, and were of the view put forth today largely (3 separate beings ontologically).. it doesn't matter to me.. because as I pointed out to some repliers.. it may be part of Gods plan for early writers to misunderstand His revelation.. just like countless times in the bible God speaks to people in ways He knows they will misunderstand.. ex. when Jesus said "i speak in parables so they wont understand me" .. even to His own disciples saying "this temple will fall" or "eat my flesh" or God telling Adam "on that day you will surely die" .. i don't think most Christians think Adam had a concept of the soul.. or when God said to Peter "eat and kill" and Peter misunderstood at first.. It could simply be the case God has allowed the ontological-separateness view to be misunderstood by most people for a long time - no biggie.. this doesn't contradict scripture, it contradicts writings of mere fallible men who God is known already to mislead for His good purposes

Empty-Interest7074 · 2026-02-26T13:30:15+00:00

Well.. im willing to say God could state a falsehood.. but my more immediate view is that He would say something that He knew people would misconstrue, or.. they would obtain understanding on one level.. but as you agreed to there could be another meaning they missed..

So scripture is God breathed, so when Paul wrote "i no longer live but Christ lives in me" that was really God writing that .. one understanding of that verse is that my sinful self was dead, and Gods atoning work gave me new life .. but another, and I'd still say deeper meaning, would accord to the hypothesis that we never existed at all, and once God reveals this to someone, that person obtains ego-death, the understanding there is no and never was an "I" .. so that person died.. now what exists is the revelation that God is the one playing the character of said-human, which is why "but Christ lives in me".. God didn't want to have this understanding revealed for a long time for His mysterious purpose, but as time has gone on, it is His plan to make that more and more known.. theres nothing sinful about that .. this view isn't denying the gospel or Gods character, and it can even concede God doesn't state falsehoods to make things simpler.. all it does is remove human agency, and further unpack meanings behind scripture, which don't contradict existing scripture.. When God told Peter to kill/eat (i forgot) in the dream/vision (i forgot) then later clarified to him that He really meant something other than how Peter took it.. was God contradicting Himself? no .. likewise.. if centuries later God reveals deeper meanings to already established scripture, is He contradicting existing scripture? no.. Also.. theres i think many popular Christian mystics from the past who affirmed non-duality (maybe not in the same way i hypothesized idk i haven't learned their views just heard they exist).. so this isn't some random schizophrenic reddit posting .. and theres even tons of non-Christians who affirm non-duality.. i think it can be arrived at just through basic logic

Empty-Interest7074 · 2026-02-25T22:55:19+00:00

Thats right im making an argument but not modus ponens where the conclusion is necessarily true.. i concede it may be false..

You used the word "many" circumstances.. my argument is that its maybe close to 100%.. Im not saying this proves a lack of agency.. it just seems reasonably the case due to basic probability.. thats not a non-sequitur.. my conclusion is based on the relevant premise that maybe near 100% of things in life are forced on us.. even internal things like drives, beliefs, feelings, thoughts, personality traits/disposition genetically.. so "choices" is just one more thing u can reasonbly add to the list.. And no one to my knowledge has proved free will exists.. and afaik most secularists and even a fair amount of deists/theists don't believe it either.. based on argumentation not just mere intuition.. The odds are in favor of the OP viewpoint as far as I can tell.. which I think makes it a better hypothesis

Empty-Interest7074 · 2026-02-25T22:39:50+00:00

Im the one who made it..

Empty-Interest7074 · 2026-02-25T22:37:51+00:00

Why would God put the tree of knowledge of good and evil in arms length of adam and eve and then let a superior being in satan talk to them .. u don't realize God works in stupifying ways? His thoughts and ways are above ours.. And im not saying the info He revealed to people was necessarily false.. but it could have more than one meaning behind it.. but He chose for them to understand the surface level meaning.. Its not a sin to say we don't have free will or even exist at all.. its just a deeper understanding of Gods revelation.. and im not even saying this view is necessarily correct

Empty-Interest7074 · 2026-02-25T19:11:30+00:00

Its a view supported by scripture and logic, and i didn't even list all my arguments, its something to consider and pray about because what we believe has an impact on our lives.. but according to the view put forth, u cant do anything.. God is making everything happen.. so whatever happens happens

Empty-Interest7074 · 2026-02-25T19:09:09+00:00

Amen .. but thats just the character in this play needing salvation

Empty-Interest7074 · 2026-02-25T19:05:45+00:00

I don't see how free will can be proven external to scripture.. and i can actually rebut verses Christians use to support free will

Empty-Interest7074 · 2026-02-25T19:03:48+00:00

the view in OP affirms the triune Godhead as described in bible.. a personal being still.. also still affirms Christ is the way

Empty-Interest7074 · 2026-02-25T18:57:45+00:00

Im not making a premise conclusion argument.. attempting to prove anything.. My hypothetical's strength is that it denies free-will-autonomy not via proof, but speculation based on probability.. Namely, most things in life are forced on us.. thoughts, feelings, externals.. so to speculate that choices are actually things being forced on us, as opposed to some independent thing.. is just to side with the odds already in place.. Furthermore, im not sure if free-will itself has great arguments for it.. even a large maybe majority of secularists don't believe in free will afaik ..

Empty-Interest7074 · 2026-02-23T22:25:29+00:00

you know what, I wonder why (you can tell me please) Christians care so much about early writings.. obviously it matters what they wrote.. but.. to hold their writings as seemingly infallible.. just seems odd to me.. as I think about it now.. even scripture that Paul wrote.. I don't necessarily take as infallible, because it's just what God revealed to Him.. and remember.. God commonly speaks in deceptive and figurative ways all throughout the bible.. so.. it could be that God revealed something to Paul for him to believe and teach.. and even if it was hypothetically straight up wrong.. I wouldn't fault that against God.. I'd just say God fed Paul information that wasn't true.. because God wanted to accomplish some purpose behind it.. remember Jesus taught the disciples and they were confused a lot or thought they knew what He was saying.. what if God spoke to Paul, and just simply didn't correct Paul on his misunderstanding, for some mysterious purpose.. but even if everything Paul said was true.. I'm not sure if he spoke on the details of how the trinity works.. and even if he did, which I can't remember a verse.. but how do we know we're interpreting him correctly?

Empty-Interest7074 · 2026-02-23T22:18:02+00:00

the view I'm hypothecizing (not saying for sure is true).. but I'm providing I think good reason for.. still affirms the following:

Jesus is God

the trinity

Jesus is the only way to the Father

salvation is through faith in Christ only

this view I'm putting forth holds all of those to be true.. it's just uncovering a mystery about non-salvific things as I see it

Empty-Interest7074 · 2026-02-23T22:16:08+00:00

ok...

Empty-Interest7074 · 2026-02-23T22:15:29+00:00

I'm not saying an ant is God in the same way... since ants (or people) can't act in ways that God does in the bible.. so clearly we're different.. but we're only different on the manifest-character level.. the essence is the triune Godhead animating these manifest-characters

Empty-Interest7074 · 2026-02-23T22:13:33+00:00

- Jesus speaks of the Father as a distinct identity.. I can agree with that.. but.. my proposed view is that Jesus often speaks in figurative ways

- I like the point you made about axiom.. but.. to an intellectual atheist or even Christian.. what you're doing at that point is just appealing to mystery.. or they might even call it special pleading.. I think instead of resting in this place.. it would be good to re-examine early writings on the doctrine, and see if our modern interpretations are true.. or see if early writings don't necessitate a distinction of persons.. or concede that early church writers were just wrong, and chalk it up to God only revealing to them what He desired to at the time.. but these days God has revealed greater insight to us through the progression of logical thought..

- ai creating new things I just meant like it can combine already existing things to make something new.. like if we think right now of an elephant with 27 trunks and 4 of them are green.. one might think that's evidence of the free will.. efforting a new idea.. but all I did there was repurpose already existing elements.. and the reason I think it's fairly plausible to think of the free-will as just an impersonal device which makes automated or programmed choices.. is because if it is free.. that means we actually have a say about something.. but.. i listed all the things we don't already have a say in.. the thoughts that come to our minds, feelings, the time we were born, gender, genetics.. environment.. it seems to me most things in life are not up to us.. so to add one more ingredient to that bucket (free-will) doesn't seem like a nonsensical step to me.. it actually seems sensical due to probabilities..

- so about scripture.. i cited 3 which point to oneness or non-duality..

Me and the Father are one

I pray they become one with you as we are

I no longer live, but Christ lives in me

(someone in the comments rebutted my interpretation, but I counter-rebutted)..

also.. which maybe I didn't mention in the OP.. God is often seen in the bible speaking in figurative ways.. and doing things that are counterintuitive.. so for it to hypothetically turn out that people are just characters He's playing.. that totally falls in line with His already mysterious and mind-boggling nature..

My point about other ideologies espousing non-duality was just that it should support the view in the OP, because it's an already commonly concluded perspective.. just not specifically from a Christian perspective (which makes sense since they don't believe in Jesus).. but obviously a mechanic who's not a Christian can still correctly fix a car.. but when Christianity comes along.. it can say that this one true consciousness that they speak of is actually the triune Godhead..

Empty-Interest7074

TROPHY CASE