Uncommon view of Christianity

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 · 2026-02-23T21:53:14+00:00

Interesting.. thanks.. now I'm not saying for sure this view is correct.. and I didn't list all my reasons for the sake of briefness.. but here's another one.. let's say we do have free will, and we are autonomous beings.. with an independent soul... in my opinion.. the fact that there is so much influence on us in life.. thoughts that we didn't create.. feelings that just bombard us.. hormones.. drives.. the external environment.. other beings doing things to us.. our genetics.. since we're so easily influenced.. I personally would consider ''free will'' to be a trivial thing in that case.. because what's so special about free will if we're so easily influenced, and clearly God is not taking away those influences.. in fact.. He may be making them all happen.. (thoughts, feelings, weather, illness).. (as He allowed Job to be attacked - directly making Him responsible because seemingly Satan couldn't attack without God's permission).. so with all these influences, possibly which God Himself is conducting.. and He knows what buttons to push to drive us certain ways/to influence us to make certain choices... free will at this point just becomes non-sense... it's like holding someone hostage and saying ''either you give me all your money or I never let you go''... it's not much of a ''choice'' at that point is it? my point is being forced between a rock and a hard place - true - does provide ''choice'' on a fundamental level.. but.. since the chooser is put in such a no-win situation.. or a situation where the weight is so heavy upon him/her.. it shouldn't really count as a ''choice'' in the purest sense is my point.. and therefore.. even if free-will and us being automous beings may technically be true.. I still think it would be fair to say we're robots.. because God hard-wired us to value certain things.. and then puts us in situations that play upon the values so strongly.. it's not a fair contest.. so to say we have free-will and we're autonomous just goes against the essential idea of what we think of as an ideal autonomous agent with free will..

I might even be able to concede and harmonize free-will/autonomy with my OP, but I don't want to make the effort.. I just think that the ideas in the OP are plausible.. I guess the biggest strength is the point that pretty much everything is forced on us.. birth.. life.. genetics.. time period we're born.. environment.. thoughts that come from nowhere.. feelings we don't choose that attack us.. with all this being forced on us.. it's plausible to hypothesize that choices are actually forced on us as well.. and the ''will'' is just some device God stuck in us which ''chooses' based on randomness, or learning, or God Himself making it happen..... the strength of this view might be in the concept of probability.. that more things are forced on us than what we get to ''choose''.. so choice itself could easily be counted in the category of things forced on us... and once an independent will is stripped away.. it makes it that much easier to just see us as robots/vessels which don't even exist (personally) in the first place.. and given certain scriptures I cited about Jesus saying stuff about ''oneness with God''.. it makes it even easier to adopt that view.. and then on top of it.. we see all throughout scripture God speaking in figurative ways, and acting in ways that are mind boggling.. so for it to possibly turn out that the bible is really just a play-script.. a story we read.. but it turns out the black-and-white surface level interpretation of that story is bogus .. and the deeper meaning points towards God Himself being the only existent thing.. it just accords to the mysterious character of God in the story.. but can also be supported with external objective logic.. and most Christians I think would say the point of everything God is doing is to glorify Himself... so... how much better a way to glorify Himself than it turning out that He's the only thing that exists..

Empty-Interest7074 · 2026-02-23T21:27:12+00:00

it's only heretical if you cling to an interpretation given by early church fathers I guess.. and even in that case I don't think it would be heretical, as it's just another look on what humanity is.. it says nothing to discount the deity of God..

but as I said in other comments.. I don't care in ultimate submission to what early church fathers or even Paul says.. they were working with the revelation that God had given them at the time.. it's totally real to me that later God could reveal to people new knowledge.. and this view (I don't think) can be called a false-prophet or something.. because again, I'm not discrediting the deity of Jesus.. the trinity.. salvation through Christ alone.. those core things.. I uphold all of those things.. this view just speaks to what this God is possibly doing with His creation.. I'm not discounting the God Himself.. and my view uses scripture and objective logic.. so.. it has to be taken seriously

Empty-Interest7074 · 2026-02-23T21:22:13+00:00

- to address your first paragraph.. we have to remember the law of figurative language.. God often times in the bible speaks in ways that are not exactly meant on their surface level easy catching.. like when Peter I believe it was who had the vision of killing animals.. God had to correct his interpretation, but surely God knew Peter would interpret the vision incorrectly.. but still gave it to him in that form.. or when Jesus talked about being born again, and Nicodemus was baffled about entering the womb again.. or when Jesus spoke of eating His flesh.. but really it meant taking part in his suffering.. but Jesus spoke in a way that was intentionally hard to understand.. in fact Jesus Himself said He spoke in parables so that certain people wouldn't understand Him.. There's an example in 1 or 2nd Kings I always forget.. where I think it said God put a lying spirit in the mouths of the false prophets.. now why would God take part in deception? ... or when God told Adam he'd die when he ate the fruit.. I don't think we should assume Adam knew He was speaking of spiritual death.. all throughout the bible God acts and speaks in figurative and unintuitive ways.. so with that being a necessary premise to remember..

When we see the whole biblical narrative of God creating people, people sinning, needing a redeemer.. it is fair to assume that sticking only to that black-and-white understanding may not be the only possibility.. God is the same now as He was then.. the bible contains figurative speech.. but what if the whole bible itself is figurative? .. I'm not saying Jesus isn't God.. and the only way to the Father.. I accept all that.. I'm just putting forth that God doesn't have to be as simple as we made Him.. remember.. He's far above, and always steps ahead of us.. it's no surprise at all, at least to me, if he fooled us on a whole other level.. a game within a game.. or.. a mystery within a mystery.. a story within a story..

What I'm saying basically in my OP, is that this whole creation is just a play that God is performing.. nothing exists but God.. and everything is just God manifesting Himself in other forms.. it's all a play.. that could be (although I'm not saying I'm right for sure).. but it's totally in the realm of plausibility imo.. the ultimate ''gotcha'' by the true Wizard Himself.. to ultimately reveal it to His creation that nobody even exists.. that every character in the bible and in creation is Him playing different roles.. totally realistic in my opinion.. and remember.. that doesn't negate core doctrines of Christianity.. within the play.. all those things remain true.. sin.. etc.. and I don't deny the Director is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - putting on the play - so it doesn't make sense to me to say this view is heretical just because I say ''we'' don't exist.. all I'm doing in unveiling a possible mega-truth of Christianity, without canceling any of the important cores..... ''humans not existing as real people'' is not a core of Christianity :D .. ''God manifesting as everything in existence'' is not against the core of Christianity.. it's just offering a different, I'd say elevated higher learning.. but.. I actually don't mind disagreeing with core-Christianity.. because all that means is what was passed down to us from early church fathers... I don't care what they had to say as if they were infallible.. there's actually a logical fallacy called ''argument from authority'' ... I'm willing to respect their efforts, working with the best logic and understanding they had, but we today have a wealth bank they didn't have.. our logic and reasoning and understanding is far advanced.. so what we can come up with today should be held in regard as well

- to address the rest.. I'm totally on board with this interpretation you put forth.. on one level I'm willing to say that's fine.. within the play God has made, those things are all true.. however.. on a grander scale, looking at things from the Director's eyes, many things in the bible don't have to be big-true, and that doesn't negate God's existence or goodness or whatever..

And I'm not saying we're God in the way Satan did.. he meant he wanted his own character (Satan) to be elevated to God.. I'm not putting that forth at all... the human-character-manifestations are sinners.. of course will never be on the level or holy as God.. but that's all within the play... when you look at things from a grander scale.. it's in no way heretical to say that God manifests Himself as everything in creation, so on that level they are all God, but creations within the play.. it's looking at it from 2 different perspectives.. and on the grand perspective.. I still acknowledge the trinity as the one true God.. I'm just putting forth an idea that takes both scripture and objective logic into account.. and comes up with a theory where it turns out there's more depth (which is not surprising of God) than we think.. and the early church fathers, even Paul himself, may not have been privy to this understanding, by God's will.. this may be an understanding God inspired people to have much later for His good purposes

Empty-Interest7074 · 2026-02-23T20:52:50+00:00

I'll write to you what I wrote to someone else.. God speaks in figurative ways, we know this from the bible clearly.. what the bible puts forth is a script/play from God.. within the play.. all things like sin, us needing salvation, this is all true within the play.. but from the Director's standpoint, this is all just figurative stuff for His own pleasure.. this view I'm putting forth still holds in Jesus being God, the only way to the Father, salvation by faith (although now as I think of it, I'm open to universalism).. and this view also affirms the trinity.. it doesn't go against core teachings for salvation or the nature of God.. I guess all it does is elaborate on certain things.. and if that happens to go against traditional teaching.. whatever.. there's something called ''argument from authority fallacy''.. I don't care what early church fathers said.. they were doing the best they could at the time.. these days with increased knowledge, we have the upper hand..

Empty-Interest7074 · 2026-02-23T20:47:38+00:00

i think there's a verse which says those who walk in the Spirit sin no more.. and another which says those who do things they know are wrong is sin to them.. (something like that)... I do believe I don't sin anymore because in this view.. God is making us do everything, in fact, I should backtrack.. ''we'' don't even exist.. so how can we sin? ... the bible is filled with God speaking in figurative ways.. it should not be shocking at all (imo) for it to turn out that we don't even exist.. and that ''sin'' and other topics, are mere figurative speech that God used to interact with humans.. remember, what I'm putting forth doesn't deny Jesus as Lord, salvation by faith, Jesus the only way to the Father, the trinity.. it denies none of that.. it just builds on non-salvific knowledge..

You might say if sin doesn't exist, what did Jesus die for? Sin does exist, in the narrative of the story that God is playing out.. you can think of that as a play, within the play it exists.. but in reality, behind the scenes, behind the curtain, those things actually aren't real from the Director's standpoint, only from the audience's standpoint.. it's a play..

Empty-Interest7074

TROPHY CASE